Mailing List Archive

On 10/2/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many people are probably aware now that i've started a test of the Google Analytics page counter on en.wikibooks.

Hi Andrew,

since this may affect many people who might not know about this, I
would like to ask you not to proceed with sending such data to a third
party.

Mathias

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This was dropped like a hot potato on Wikinews. You - as the analytics
client - may not get the same level of detail as CheckUser. However Google
do.


Brian.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Whitworth
Sent: 02 October 2007 18:27
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Google Analytics test


Many people are probably aware now that i've started a test of the Google
Analytics page counter on en.wikibooks. I hear that people are running a
similar kind of test on en.wikinews. Currently, these programs are opt-in:
only registered users are using these scripts, and it involves manually
adding them to the personal monobook files. The information received so far
has been fantastic: counts of page hits, click patterns, information about
entry points that we can use to improve the welcome for new visitions, etc.
However this test has also raised a few concerns. Some concerns I would like
to address, others I would like to get input from the foundation about.

1) First and foremost is the issue of privacy. The information that google
analytics collects is a step above what is typically available to regular
users, but not quite as detailed as CU data. Some information, such as
geographical area and the ISP of a user is aggregated, but it is not
attached in any way to a user's screenname. That is, without a priori
knowledge about the user, it is impossible to attach a particular username
to a particular ISP, geographical location, or any other piece of collected
data. I am currently inspecting the google analytics code looking for a way
to suppress the collection of ISP or geographical information, but havent
found a way yet.

1a) Ancillary to the idea of privacy is the issue that the analytics code
should probably remain opt-in. Many users are conscious of privacy and
security issues, and they shouldnt be forced to decide between participating
in a tracking program or not visiting wikibooks at all. I've proposed a
solution that unregistered users could be tracked by default (testing
wgUserName == null), but registered users would need to opt-in explicitly.
After all, I feel that information about our readers is far more important
then the same information about our editors.

1b) Another related idea is that individual books could be tracked for
readership patterns, while the whole remainder of the wikibooks project
could remain script-free. Notification templates could be used to indicate
which books the scripts were active on. A book could be tracked for a month
or so at a time. We could track a handful of books at once, and then change
which books we track on a regular basis.

2) Second is the issue of server load. Running the script now currently
involves an additional javascript page access per user. However, the
javascript files can be cached. The script runs in javascript and performs
interactions with the google analytics website, but does not transact with
the WMF servers. I believe that server load for us should be minimal (but I
want confirmation about this from the techs)

3) Log files are only available by default to the google account holder
(myself) and other people that are specifically added by myself to the
profile. If we keep the access list very restrictive, we dont need to worry
about sensitive data from becoming public. However, we do run the risk of
giving users with access "power", which is a common fear. If we were to set
up accounts on behalf of the project or the WMF (as opposed to personal
accounts), we could negate this issue entirely.

I'm looking for as much input on this issue as I can get. I'm not planning
to make any changes to any javascript for the forseeable future, till the
concerns are ironed out.

--Andrew Whitworth


_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
[snip]
> I've proposed a solution that unregistered users could be
> tracked by default (testing wgUserName == null), but registered users
> would need to opt-in explicitly. After all, I feel that information
> about our readers is far more important then the same information
> about our editors.

Sending complete logging information on our visitors to a third party
would still be an absolute violation of our privacy policy, so probably
a no-no. :)

The opt-in-only experiments are at least interesting, though, and should
give people a taste for what kind of aggregate info we can make use of.

> 1b) Another related idea is that individual books could be tracked
> for readership patterns, while the whole remainder of the wikibooks
> project could remain script-free. Notification templates could be
> used to indicate which books the scripts were active on. A book could
> be tracked for a month or so at a time. We could track a handful of
> books at once, and then change which books we track on a regular
> basis.

I think it'd be a lot nicer to do the tracking for all pages and all
books, from our in-house logging system. All hits to the HTTP proxies
are logged, and this log stream is available internally in its entirety,
with some sampling for diagnostic use, and some filtered
(privacy-sanitized) samples are currently sent to third party
researchers out of that.

I believe there's some ongoing work from a couple of parties on getting
useful data out of the log stream for our own use. (Isn't somebody
trying to get something new going via toolserver related to this also?)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHAoS0wRnhpk1wk44RAg0mAKDPSneKNaQesDHRyRNcGaszAIq27wCgnk9R
4WAh3iRdY2NVDDLs4hGt22c=
=2W8M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is a bad idea. I share Mathias' concerns that this has privacy
policy implications.

-Dan Rosenthal
On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

>
> Many people are probably aware now that i've started a test of the
> Google Analytics page counter on en.wikibooks. I hear that people
> are running a similar kind of test on en.wikinews. Currently, these
> programs are opt-in: only registered users are using these scripts,
> and it involves manually adding them to the personal monobook
> files. The information received so far has been fantastic: counts
> of page hits, click patterns, information about entry points that
> we can use to improve the welcome for new visitions, etc. However
> this test has also raised a few concerns. Some concerns I would
> like to address, others I would like to get input from the
> foundation about.
>
> 1) First and foremost is the issue of privacy. The information that
> google analytics collects is a step above what is typically
> available to regular users, but not quite as detailed as CU data.
> Some information, such as geographical area and the ISP of a user
> is aggregated, but it is not attached in any way to a user's
> screenname. That is, without a priori knowledge about the user, it
> is impossible to attach a particular username to a particular ISP,
> geographical location, or any other piece of collected data. I am
> currently inspecting the google analytics code looking for a way to
> suppress the collection of ISP or geographical information, but
> havent found a way yet.
>
> 1a) Ancillary to the idea of privacy is the issue that the
> analytics code should probably remain opt-in. Many users are
> conscious of privacy and security issues, and they shouldnt be
> forced to decide between participating in a tracking program or not
> visiting wikibooks at all. I've proposed a solution that
> unregistered users could be tracked by default (testing wgUserName
> == null), but registered users would need to opt-in explicitly.
> After all, I feel that information about our readers is far more
> important then the same information about our editors.
>
> 1b) Another related idea is that individual books could be tracked
> for readership patterns, while the whole remainder of the wikibooks
> project could remain script-free. Notification templates could be
> used to indicate which books the scripts were active on. A book
> could be tracked for a month or so at a time. We could track a
> handful of books at once, and then change which books we track on a
> regular basis.
>
> 2) Second is the issue of server load. Running the script now
> currently involves an additional javascript page access per user.
> However, the javascript files can be cached. The script runs in
> javascript and performs interactions with the google analytics
> website, but does not transact with the WMF servers. I believe that
> server load for us should be minimal (but I want confirmation about
> this from the techs)
>
> 3) Log files are only available by default to the google account
> holder (myself) and other people that are specifically added by
> myself to the profile. If we keep the access list very restrictive,
> we dont need to worry about sensitive data from becoming public.
> However, we do run the risk of giving users with access "power",
> which is a common fear. If we were to set up accounts on behalf of
> the project or the WMF (as opposed to personal accounts), we could
> negate this issue entirely.
>
> I'm looking for as much input on this issue as I can get. I'm not
> planning to make any changes to any javascript for the forseeable
> future, till the concerns are ironed out.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>Sending complete logging information on our visitors to a third party
>would still be an absolute violation of our privacy policy, so probably
>a no-no. :)
>The opt-in-only experiments are at least interesting, though, and should
>give people a taste for what kind of aggregate info we can make use of.

Exactly, this is only an experiment and we will gather useful information from it whether we try and push things to a new level or not. Many book authors have been crying for some time now for a way to get some readership statistics about their books. The idea of enabling page hit counters has been brought up and shot down on a regular basis. We've applied for an account to the page counter on the toolserver but with no reply.

>I think it'd be a lot nicer to do the tracking for all pages and all
>books, from our in-house logging system. All hits to the HTTP proxies
>are logged, and this log stream is available internally in its entirety

The issue of enabling page counters has been brought up before on bugzilla. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5667 for one example. It's not that we aren't looking for an in-house solution, but it seems like most options have been exhausted. I would be thrilled to learn that there was an in-house logging mechanism available to us to use. We know that one doesnt currently exist in a usable form, and that the techs have more important things to do then throw one together for us.

--Andrew Whitworth


_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It is not just Wikibooks craving statistics. Wikinews would incredibly
benefit from knowing who likes what in terms of current events. It would
give us an idea as to what we need to expand on. This is, IMO, about
expanding the capabilities of a project. To bring more of what our
"readers" want. I agree there are privacy issues, but on a Wiki-wide
scale, all projects, I see no reason why we cannot take a survey/vote on
those active users who wish to participate or not. New users can get the
option as well. This is not an impossible thing to achieve. If all that
stands in the way is a policy then I say take the time to at least
consider the possibilities before striking the idea down with a bolt of
lightning. This, or something similar to Google Analytics, would be of a
huge benefit to every Wiki.

Jason Safoutin

foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Google Analytics test (Andrew Whitworth)
> 2. Re: university blocking wikipedia (C F)
> 3. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Thomas Dalton)
> 4. Re: university blocking wikipedia (fredbaud@waterwiki.info)
> 5. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Florence Devouard)
> 6. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Thomas Dalton)
> 7. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Casey Brown)
> 8. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Terin Stock)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:11:02 -0400
> From: Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Google Analytics test
> To: <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY127-W1984DAD8EFC517A41DC76FA6AE0@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
>> Sending complete logging information on our visitors to a third party
>> would still be an absolute violation of our privacy policy, so probably
>> a no-no. :)
>> The opt-in-only experiments are at least interesting, though, and should
>> give people a taste for what kind of aggregate info we can make use of.
>>
>
> Exactly, this is only an experiment and we will gather useful information from it whether we try and push things to a new level or not. Many book authors have been crying for some time now for a way to get some readership statistics about their books. The idea of enabling page hit counters has been brought up and shot down on a regular basis. We've applied for an account to the page counter on the toolserver but with no reply.
>
>
>> I think it'd be a lot nicer to do the tracking for all pages and all
>> books, from our in-house logging system. All hits to the HTTP proxies
>> are logged, and this log stream is available internally in its entirety
>>
>
> The issue of enabling page counters has been brought up before on bugzilla. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5667 for one example. It's not that we aren't looking for an in-house solution, but it seems like most options have been exhausted. I would be thrilled to learn that there was an in-house logging mechanism available to us to use. We know that one doesnt currently exist in a usable form, and that the techs have more important things to do then throw one together for us.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Climb to the top of the charts!? Play Star Shuffle:? the word scramble challenge with star power.
> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:13:27 -0400
> From: "C F" <shmaltz@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <81000b5a0710021513o53f0c65did4100dfc1f529ec3@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/2/07, Terin Stock <terin.stock@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
>> I know the Palm Beach County Public School district in Palm Beach,
>> Florida activity blocks all access to Wikipedia, under the "Educational
>> Sites" category. I've talked with some teachers, they suggest using
>> answers.com as a solution. Most of the teachers also raised concerns
>> about blocking of other useful websites, both from the teacher's and
>> student's standpoint.
>>
>
> Well thats for a Public School district, not a university. Public
> Schools have been way more stricter with content filtering than
> universities.
>
> However, blocking wp from schools is something I can understand, and I
> am assuming that it doesn't have to do with content but with the fact
> that users using the school districts computers can edit wp, and thats
> what they are trying to avoid.
>
>
>
>> That said, it seems that the only Wikimedia site blocked is Wikipedia.
>> And isn't answers.com just a sql dump of Wikipedia? Do they have editors
>> that check the articles on their site?
>>
>> C F wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/07, Samuel Klein <sj@laptop.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unis have *been blocked* by wikipedia when they hosted active vandals.
>>>> That's different.
>>>>
>>> I'm assuming what the OP said was that the Us blocked wp, and not that
>>> the Us were blocked by WP.
>>>
>>> In any event this is just a rumor as long as the OP only heard about
>>> it, it hasn't really happened.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> SJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, dan harp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>>>>> I work at.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>>>>
>>>>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>>>>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>>>>> possibility odd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>>>>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>>>>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:20:33 +0100
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0710021520w3602a58fi2444ed10445da8bc@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 02/10/2007, Terin Stock <terin.stock@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
>> I know the Palm Beach County Public School district in Palm Beach,
>> Florida activity blocks all access to Wikipedia, under the "Educational
>> Sites" category. I've talked with some teachers, they suggest using
>> answers.com as a solution. Most of the teachers also raised concerns
>> about blocking of other useful websites, both from the teacher's and
>> student's standpoint.
>>
>
> They have a whole category specifically for blocking sites they
> consider educational? Does someone need to explain the point of
> "school" to them?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:21:45 +0000
> From: fredbaud@waterwiki.info
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <W636512220220601191363705@webmail8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Is it blocked, or just not linked?
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terin Stock [mailto:terin.stock@wikinewsie.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 04:07 PM
> To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
>
> I know the Palm Beach County Public School district in Palm Beach,
> Florida activity blocks all access to Wikipedia, under the "Educational
> Sites" category. I've talked with some teachers, they suggest using
> answers.com as a solution. Most of the teachers also raised concerns
> about blocking of other useful websites, both from the teacher's and
> student's standpoint.
>
> That said, it seems that the only Wikimedia site blocked is Wikipedia.
> And isn't answers.com just a sql dump of Wikipedia? Do they have editors
> that check the articles on their site?
>
> C F wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/07, Samuel Klein <sj@laptop.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Unis have *been blocked* by wikipedia when they hosted active vandals.
>>> That's different.
>>>
>> I'm assuming what the OP said was that the Us blocked wp, and not that
>> the Us were blocked by WP.
>>
>> In any event this is just a rumor as long as the OP only heard about
>> it, it hasn't really happened.
>>
>>
>>
>>> SJ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, dan harp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>>>> I work at.
>>>>
>>>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>>>
>>>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>>>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>>>> possibility odd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>>>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>>>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>>>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:11:29 +0200
> From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <fdufmd$hos$1@sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> dan harp wrote:
>
>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>> I work at.
>>
>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>
>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>> possibility odd.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
> Ask them to cite their sources :-)
> (for example, ask the person to provide names of universities
> supposingly doing that)
> Then, if the person reveals unable to provide any names, adopt a very
> serious and dignified face, nod gravely, and says "urban legends are
> terrible. I wish so much people would start using figures and citing
> sources when they make a claim. We should ban sentences starting by
> "many says that", or "some people consider that" or "Most people know
> that"".
>
> Ant
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:25:14 +0100
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0710021525p68d63dc7s18a3d8a916ab7efc@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>> Ask them to cite their sources :-)
>> (for example, ask the person to provide names of universities
>> supposingly doing that)
>> Then, if the person reveals unable to provide any names, adopt a very
>> serious and dignified face, nod gravely, and says "urban legends are
>> terrible. I wish so much people would start using figures and citing
>> sources when they make a claim. We should ban sentences starting by
>> "many says that", or "some people consider that" or "Most people know
>> that"".
>>
>
> You want to pass [[WP:WEASEL]] into law? Sounds like a plan. Everyone
> pick a country, and we'll start work.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:25:25 -0400
> From: "Casey Brown" <cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4053450b0710021525k2f908c63lf530d33eca9d9b89@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> ....like we do on Wikipedia! :-)
>
> On 10/2/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> dan harp wrote:
>>
>>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>>> I work at.
>>>
>>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>>
>>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>>> possibility odd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> Ask them to cite their sources :-)
>> (for example, ask the person to provide names of universities
>> supposingly doing that)
>> Then, if the person reveals unable to provide any names, adopt a very
>> serious and dignified face, nod gravely, and says "urban legends are
>> terrible. I wish so much people would start using figures and citing
>> sources when they make a claim. We should ban sentences starting by
>> "many says that", or "some people consider that" or "Most people know
>> that"".
>>
>> Ant
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wikinews I am sure that en. would not be the only language that would
appreciate something as simple as a page hit counter. Our comments system
(which we'd like a new namespace to do properly) is the only way we have of
gauging reader interest.

We have one or two suitably technically minded people on Wikinews who have
accounts on the toolserver. I don't think they're perhaps up to running
something against the weblogs from Wikipedia, but that is where small
projects can help out. Betas of systems that need performance tuning before
turning loose on Wikipedia can be developed and tested in an environment
where people don't hammer the servers.

Other "nice to have" things that are inspired by Google Analytics would be a
geographic breakdown of readers. For example, I'd love to know if our active
New Zealand contributors are bringing in a lot of Kiwi visitors on their
articles, or on the site in general. A breakdown by continent with drilldown
to country level would be great. I'd want to have the ability to look up an
article and see where it was most popular, or look up a country and see
which articles they found the most popular. Further to that, a visitor
breakdown by namespace would be most useful in identifying which countries
have people taking an interest in the running of the project.

Part of the goal of knowing the readership on the small projects is
converting readers into contributors. On Wikinews that includes getting
people to comment (or rant) about stories. It is a small step from there to
correcting typos then going, "hey! No story on xxx, I'll have a go!"


Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jason
Safoutin
Sent: 03 October 2007 02:24
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Google Analytics test

It is not just Wikibooks craving statistics. Wikinews would incredibly
benefit from knowing who likes what in terms of current events. It would
give us an idea as to what we need to expand on. This is, IMO, about
expanding the capabilities of a project. To bring more of what our
"readers" want. I agree there are privacy issues, but on a Wiki-wide
scale, all projects, I see no reason why we cannot take a survey/vote on
those active users who wish to participate or not. New users can get the
option as well. This is not an impossible thing to achieve. If all that
stands in the way is a policy then I say take the time to at least
consider the possibilities before striking the idea down with a bolt of
lightning. This, or something similar to Google Analytics, would be of a
huge benefit to every Wiki.

Jason Safoutin

foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Google Analytics test (Andrew Whitworth)
> 2. Re: university blocking wikipedia (C F)
> 3. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Thomas Dalton)
> 4. Re: university blocking wikipedia (fredbaud@waterwiki.info)
> 5. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Florence Devouard)
> 6. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Thomas Dalton)
> 7. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Casey Brown)
> 8. Re: university blocking wikipedia (Terin Stock)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:11:02 -0400
> From: Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Google Analytics test
> To: <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY127-W1984DAD8EFC517A41DC76FA6AE0@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
>> Sending complete logging information on our visitors to a third party
>> would still be an absolute violation of our privacy policy, so probably
>> a no-no. :)
>> The opt-in-only experiments are at least interesting, though, and should
>> give people a taste for what kind of aggregate info we can make use of.
>>
>
> Exactly, this is only an experiment and we will gather useful information
from it whether we try and push things to a new level or not. Many book
authors have been crying for some time now for a way to get some readership
statistics about their books. The idea of enabling page hit counters has
been brought up and shot down on a regular basis. We've applied for an
account to the page counter on the toolserver but with no reply.
>
>
>> I think it'd be a lot nicer to do the tracking for all pages and all
>> books, from our in-house logging system. All hits to the HTTP proxies
>> are logged, and this log stream is available internally in its entirety
>>
>
> The issue of enabling page counters has been brought up before on
bugzilla. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5667 for one
example. It's not that we aren't looking for an in-house solution, but it
seems like most options have been exhausted. I would be thrilled to learn
that there was an in-house logging mechanism available to us to use. We know
that one doesnt currently exist in a usable form, and that the techs have
more important things to do then throw one together for us.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Climb to the top of the charts!? Play Star Shuffle:? the word scramble
challenge with star power.
> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:13:27 -0400
> From: "C F" <shmaltz@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <81000b5a0710021513o53f0c65did4100dfc1f529ec3@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/2/07, Terin Stock <terin.stock@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
>> I know the Palm Beach County Public School district in Palm Beach,
>> Florida activity blocks all access to Wikipedia, under the "Educational
>> Sites" category. I've talked with some teachers, they suggest using
>> answers.com as a solution. Most of the teachers also raised concerns
>> about blocking of other useful websites, both from the teacher's and
>> student's standpoint.
>>
>
> Well thats for a Public School district, not a university. Public
> Schools have been way more stricter with content filtering than
> universities.
>
> However, blocking wp from schools is something I can understand, and I
> am assuming that it doesn't have to do with content but with the fact
> that users using the school districts computers can edit wp, and thats
> what they are trying to avoid.
>
>
>
>> That said, it seems that the only Wikimedia site blocked is Wikipedia.
>> And isn't answers.com just a sql dump of Wikipedia? Do they have editors
>> that check the articles on their site?
>>
>> C F wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/07, Samuel Klein <sj@laptop.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unis have *been blocked* by wikipedia when they hosted active vandals.
>>>> That's different.
>>>>
>>> I'm assuming what the OP said was that the Us blocked wp, and not that
>>> the Us were blocked by WP.
>>>
>>> In any event this is just a rumor as long as the OP only heard about
>>> it, it hasn't really happened.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> SJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, dan harp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>>>>> I work at.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>>>>
>>>>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>>>>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>>>>> possibility odd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
>>>>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>>>>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>>>>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:20:33 +0100
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0710021520w3602a58fi2444ed10445da8bc@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 02/10/2007, Terin Stock <terin.stock@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
>> I know the Palm Beach County Public School district in Palm Beach,
>> Florida activity blocks all access to Wikipedia, under the "Educational
>> Sites" category. I've talked with some teachers, they suggest using
>> answers.com as a solution. Most of the teachers also raised concerns
>> about blocking of other useful websites, both from the teacher's and
>> student's standpoint.
>>
>
> They have a whole category specifically for blocking sites they
> consider educational? Does someone need to explain the point of
> "school" to them?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:21:45 +0000
> From: fredbaud@waterwiki.info
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <W636512220220601191363705@webmail8>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Is it blocked, or just not linked?
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terin Stock [mailto:terin.stock@wikinewsie.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 04:07 PM
> To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
>
> I know the Palm Beach County Public School district in Palm Beach,
> Florida activity blocks all access to Wikipedia, under the "Educational
> Sites" category. I've talked with some teachers, they suggest using
> answers.com as a solution. Most of the teachers also raised concerns
> about blocking of other useful websites, both from the teacher's and
> student's standpoint.
>
> That said, it seems that the only Wikimedia site blocked is Wikipedia.
> And isn't answers.com just a sql dump of Wikipedia? Do they have editors
> that check the articles on their site?
>
> C F wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/07, Samuel Klein <sj@laptop.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Unis have *been blocked* by wikipedia when they hosted active vandals.
>>> That's different.
>>>
>> I'm assuming what the OP said was that the Us blocked wp, and not that
>> the Us were blocked by WP.
>>
>> In any event this is just a rumor as long as the OP only heard about
>> it, it hasn't really happened.
>>
>>
>>
>>> SJ
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, dan harp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>>>> I work at.
>>>>
>>>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>>>
>>>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>>>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>>>> possibility odd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
>>>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>>>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>>>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:11:29 +0200
> From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <fdufmd$hos$1@sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> dan harp wrote:
>
>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>> I work at.
>>
>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>
>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>> possibility odd.
>>
>>
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
> Ask them to cite their sources :-)
> (for example, ask the person to provide names of universities
> supposingly doing that)
> Then, if the person reveals unable to provide any names, adopt a very
> serious and dignified face, nod gravely, and says "urban legends are
> terrible. I wish so much people would start using figures and citing
> sources when they make a claim. We should ban sentences starting by
> "many says that", or "some people consider that" or "Most people know
> that"".
>
> Ant
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:25:14 +0100
> From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0710021525p68d63dc7s18a3d8a916ab7efc@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>> Ask them to cite their sources :-)
>> (for example, ask the person to provide names of universities
>> supposingly doing that)
>> Then, if the person reveals unable to provide any names, adopt a very
>> serious and dignified face, nod gravely, and says "urban legends are
>> terrible. I wish so much people would start using figures and citing
>> sources when they make a claim. We should ban sentences starting by
>> "many says that", or "some people consider that" or "Most people know
>> that"".
>>
>
> You want to pass [[WP:WEASEL]] into law? Sounds like a plan. Everyone
> pick a country, and we'll start work.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:25:25 -0400
> From: "Casey Brown" <cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] university blocking wikipedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4053450b0710021525k2f908c63lf530d33eca9d9b89@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> ....like we do on Wikipedia! :-)
>
> On 10/2/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> dan harp wrote:
>>
>>> just heard an odd thing from a peer @ the high school
>>> I work at.
>>>
>>> "Many major universities have blocked wikipedia"
>>>
>>> thought I would throw it out to the community and get
>>> a bit of direction to research - I find the
>>> possibility odd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
>>
>>> Need a vacation? Get great deals
>>> to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>>> http://travel.yahoo.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>> Ask them to cite their sources :-)
>> (for example, ask the person to provide names of universities
>> supposingly doing that)
>> Then, if the person reveals unable to provide any names, adopt a very
>> serious and dignified face, nod gravely, and says "urban legends are
>> terrible. I wish so much people would start using figures and citing
>> sources when they make a claim. We should ban sentences starting by
>> "many says that", or "some people consider that" or "Most people know
>> that"".
>>
>> Ant
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 02/10/2007, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The issue of enabling page counters has been brought up before on bugzilla. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5667 for one example. It's not that we aren't looking for an in-house solution, but it seems like most options have been exhausted. I would be thrilled to learn that there was an in-house logging mechanism available to us to use. We know that one doesnt currently exist in a usable form, and that the techs have more important things to do then throw one together for us.


I suspect the issue is having someone who wants it who has time to
write something. I see Brian McNeil says there are interested people.
If they can't get what they need from the toolserver, they should
definitely hop onto #wikimedia-tech and chat with the system
administrators.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/10/2007, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The issue of enabling page counters has been brought up before on bugzilla. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5667 for one example. It's not that we aren't looking for an in-house solution, but it seems like most options have been exhausted. I would be thrilled to learn that there was an in-house logging mechanism available to us to use. We know that one doesnt currently exist in a usable form, and that the techs have more important things to do then throw one together for us.
>
>
> I suspect the issue is having someone who wants it who has time to
> write something. I see Brian McNeil says there are interested people.
> If they can't get what they need from the toolserver, they should
> definitely hop onto #wikimedia-tech and chat with the system
> administrators.

In that case the bugzilla request asked for something very specific,
that the mediawiki counters be enabled, and the answer to that very
specific question will remain no.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>In that case the bugzilla request asked for something very specific,
>that the mediawiki counters be enabled, and the answer to that very
>specific question will remain no.

Can I ask why? I can appreciate it might not work on Wikipedia, but what
about the smaller projects?


Brian.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> Can I ask why? I can appreciate it might not work on Wikipedia, but what
> about the smaller projects?

Did you read the comment in the bug?
--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> >In that case the bugzilla request asked for something very specific,
> >that the mediawiki counters be enabled, and the answer to that very
> >specific question will remain no.
>
> Can I ask why? I can appreciate it might not work on Wikipedia, but what
> about the smaller projects?

Its documented in the bug. All of the Wikimedia sites are setup in a
way that defeat that kind of counter.

Many of our smaller wikis get enough traffic that having the front end
cache is important. Furthermore, special casing one would also be a
huge maintenance burden and would result in lower reliability for that
site and potentially all of the sites.

While that knob is going to get turned back on, we do wish to have the
functionality of counting page views. This can be best achieved by
writing something to read the squid logs ... and that is being worked
on (and there is code in the mediawiki SVN for it).

Until then, why not use the output from WikiCharts?

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=dewikinews&ns=alle&limit=100&month=10%2F2007&mode=view

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>> Can I ask why? I can appreciate it might not work on Wikipedia, but what
>> about the smaller projects?

>Did you read the comment in the bug?

I did now. Why does it leave me with the impression that Wikimedia is a set
of great ideas and pretty good bits of software tied together with bailing
twine? Or can we blame Unix for that?


Brian.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> Its documented in the bug. All of the Wikimedia sites are setup in a
>way that defeat that kind of counter.

Eloquence was quick to point that out. :)

>Until then, why not use the output from WikiCharts?
>
>http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=dew
>ikinews&ns=alle&limit=100&month=10%2F2007&mode=view

Thanks for that, I'll take a look.


Brian.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> I did now. Why does it leave me with the impression that Wikimedia is a
> set of great ideas and pretty good bits of software tied together with
> bailing twine?

Probably because you are unfamiliar with the technical challenges and
compromises involved in running high traffic websites.

Even with an unlimited budget you would see these kind of things, and
with as cost conscious as the Wikimedia infrastructure the traffic
levels that they become necessary at are far lower.

[wikicharts]
>Thanks for that, I'll take a look.

Wow. You didn't know about that?

We really need to solve these communications problems because it's
utterly miserable that we've got people complaining that we need X
when they aren't aware of the kinda-X that we already have. This seems
to happen very frequently :(

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> We really need to solve these communications problems because it's
> utterly miserable that we've got people complaining that we need X
> when they aren't aware of the kinda-X that we already have. This seems
> to happen very frequently :(

You wouldn't believe how many people don't know about the toolserver
at all. It needs a little bit of PR. :-)

--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

yeah we do know about it and the wikicharts its just that wikinews isnt set
up on there and we have requested it many times in emails and IRC to which
we have had no responses or action to. i also created a bug
here<http://infra.ts.wikimedia.org/jira/browse/LEON-2>which has not
been actioned yet. IMO wikicharts would be great for part of
the problem if only someone were to set it up.

mark



On 10/3/07, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/3/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We really need to solve these communications problems because it's
> > utterly miserable that we've got people complaining that we need X
> > when they aren't aware of the kinda-X that we already have. This seems
> > to happen very frequently :(
>
> You wouldn't believe how many people don't know about the toolserver
> at all. It needs a little bit of PR. :-)
>
> --
> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

{{sofixit}}?

-Dan Rosenthal

On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 10/3/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>>
>
> Wow. You didn't know about that?
>
> We really need to solve these communications problems because it's
> utterly miserable that we've got people complaining that we need X
> when they aren't aware of the kinda-X that we already have. This seems
> to happen very frequently :(
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

well i think ill do the customary WONTFIX then because it needs action from
toolserver people preferably Leon so i cant do it.



On 10/3/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> {{sofixit}}?
>
> -Dan Rosenthal
>
> On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > On 10/3/07, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Wow. You didn't know about that?
> >
> > We really need to solve these communications problems because it's
> > utterly miserable that we've got people complaining that we need X
> > when they aren't aware of the kinda-X that we already have. This seems
> > to happen very frequently :(
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 03/10/2007, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:

> I did now. Why does it leave me with the impression that Wikimedia is a set
> of great ideas and pretty good bits of software tied together with bailing
> twine?


Because it is!

The fourth little pig is a sysadmin, so builds a house of gaffer tape
and string. The wolf laughs and laughs at this ludicrously inelegant
and ill-presented non-design, and huffs and puffs and huffs and puffs
and huffs and puffs until some string comes loose and pulls some
gaffer tape with it, which proceeds to wrap itself around the wolf,
who struggles until it encases him and he suffocates. The fourth
little pig wanders out, put some fresh gaffer over the bit that came
off and puts the wolf's body next to the rubbish bins for collection.

Moral: Heed whatever friend BOFH says, including what he doesn't say.


> Or can we blame Unix for that?


[[:en:Worse is better]]


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/3/07, Wikinews Markie <newsmarkie@googlemail.com> wrote:
> well i think ill do the customary WONTFIX then because it needs action from
> toolserver people preferably Leon so i cant do it.

You filed a bug on it on Sunday. Leon hasn't been around.

There are some 25 wikis already set up in wikicharts, so there is no
reason to expect that it wont be. Have patience.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

yes the bug was but emails have been sent many times and no responses
received. i do have patience its just when people are telling us that we
should "do this" when were already doing it annoys me. hopefully this will
be set up and then some of our requirements will be met.

thanks

Mark

On 10/3/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/3/07, Wikinews Markie <newsmarkie@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > well i think ill do the customary WONTFIX then because it needs action
> from
> > toolserver people preferably Leon so i cant do it.
>
> You filed a bug on it on Sunday. Leon hasn't been around.
>
> There are some 25 wikis already set up in wikicharts, so there is no
> reason to expect that it wont be. Have patience.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ermmmm Erik there are many wikimedia/wikipedia things that no one knows
about. Especially our history seems to be forgotten be many. That is why
someone put the Dutch version of Ignore all Rules up for deletion on nl:
Luckily the way ti stands now it will be kept.

Waerth
> On 10/3/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We really need to solve these communications problems because it's
>> utterly miserable that we've got people complaining that we need X
>> when they aren't aware of the kinda-X that we already have. This seems
>> to happen very frequently :(
>>
>
> You wouldn't believe how many people don't know about the toolserver
> at all. It needs a little bit of PR. :-)
>
>


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 03/10/2007, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> wrote:

> I did now. Why does it leave me with the impression that Wikimedia is a set
> of great ideas and pretty good bits of software tied together with bailing
> twine? Or can we blame Unix for that?

It's a pretty good bit of software whch was originally invented to run
a much smaller site :-) Some features are now... well, mainly of
historic interest, because they didn't scale well or they got made
redundant by the development of other things.

(It's a bit like the law, really...)

Tied together with baling wire and running on a few thousand prayers
is not a bad way to describe our infrastructure, but it's only
metaphorically accurate!

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l