Mailing List Archive

Amusing. I am strongly reminded of the fights over Macedonia and Liancourt Rocks. Except on those occasions nobody had any illusions that the participants on all side were any more than puerile time-wasters. Just because this lot have greater fluency in the English language doesn't mean that they're any more rational.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.



> From: everson@evertype.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:21:20 +0000
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
>
> I don't know whether this is a reasonable place to put this problem,
> but the articles on Ireland on en.wikipedia.org need a serious look by
> people with a neutral view. Right now we've got a clique of about 10
> editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming
> conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles
> themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding
> arbitration.
>
> A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move
> [[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to
> [[Ireland]], and [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]].
> That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move [[Ireland]]
> to [[Ireland (island)]], keep [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] where it
> is, and move [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland]]. If any of you
> would like to take a look, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to_Ireland
> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28island.29
> .
>
> At least I'd like advice as to how we can get out of this mess.
>
> Michael Everson
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Win £1000 John Lewis shopping sprees with BigSnapSearch.com
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Outside of those involved, I don't think many harbor those same
illusions here either.

-Dan
On Nov 26, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Christiano Moreschi wrote:

>
> Amusing. I am strongly reminded of the fights over Macedonia and
> Liancourt Rocks. Except on those occasions nobody had any illusions
> that the participants on all side were any more than puerile time-
> wasters. Just because this lot have greater fluency in the English
> language doesn't mean that they're any more rational.
>
> CM
>
> Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
>
>
>
>> From: everson@evertype.com
>> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:21:20 +0000
>> Subject: [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
>>
>> I don't know whether this is a reasonable place to put this problem,
>> but the articles on Ireland on en.wikipedia.org need a serious look
>> by
>> people with a neutral view. Right now we've got a clique of about 10
>> editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming
>> conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles
>> themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding
>> arbitration.
>>
>> A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move
>> [[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to
>> [[Ireland]], and [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]].
>> That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move [[Ireland]]
>> to [[Ireland (island)]], keep [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] where it
>> is, and move [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland]]. If any of you
>> would like to take a look, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to_Ireland
>> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28island.29
>> .
>>
>> At least I'd like advice as to how we can get out of this mess.
>>
>> Michael Everson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> foundation-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Win £1000 John Lewis shopping sprees with BigSnapSearch.com
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


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

> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:50:38 +0000
> From: Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
>
> Amusing. I am strongly reminded of the fights over Macedonia and
> Liancourt Rocks. Except on those occasions nobody had any illusions
> that the participants on all side were any more than puerile time-
> wasters. Just because this lot have greater fluency in the English
> language doesn't mean that they're any more rational.

Thanks for not caring. That doesn't help us get to a solution. :-(

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com


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

Again, this is not the place for it. I see you've brought it up with Jimbo
and elsewhere, so please stop canvassing a EN-WP dispute in places it
doesn't belong.

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

2008/11/26 David Yellope <sirfozzie@gmail.com>:

> Again, this is not the place for it. I see you've brought it up with Jimbo
> and elsewhere, so please stop canvassing a EN-WP dispute in places it
> doesn't belong.


I've been suggesting on wikien-l something like trying to work out,
with actual numbers, what article readers would reasonably be
expecting where. This led to suggesting an idea on wikitech-l on how
to gather internal referer logs (where people go from one article to
another, or what searches lead to what articles) in a way that won't
breach privacy. Such information would be of great general use in
seeing what readers actually want and do, rather than attempting to
guess. So it's far from a fruitless discussion.


- d.

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

2008/11/26 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
> I've been suggesting on wikien-l something like trying to work out,
> with actual numbers, what article readers would reasonably be
> expecting where. This led to suggesting an idea on wikitech-l on how
> to gather internal referer logs (where people go from one article to
> another, or what searches lead to what articles) in a way that won't
> breach privacy. Such information would be of great general use in
> seeing what readers actually want and do, rather than attempting to
> guess. So it's far from a fruitless discussion.

You don't need to. You just rig it so that to go from one article to
the other involves going via a redirect then measure the traffic on
that redirect. This was I understand done with respect to some links
on the main page at one point. Doesn't require dev involvement.


--
geni

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

I don't think that this is the right list for this matter as this is Wikipedia's problem. That being said, I mostly agree, but would leave ROI where it is as both North and the Republic are states.




________________________________
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:21:20 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland

I don't know whether this is a reasonable place to put this problem,
but the articles on Ireland on en.wikipedia.org need a serious look by
people with a neutral view. Right now we've got a clique of about 10
editors filibustering and preventing any change to the article naming
conventions. It's driving us mad, and preventing the articles
themselves from being improved. Somehow I think we need binding
arbitration.

A number of us think that the most sensible proposal is to move
[[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to
[[Ireland]], and [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]].
That's a compromise over an alternative, which is to move [[Ireland]]
to [[Ireland (island)]], keep [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] where it
is, and move [[Republic of Ireland]] to [[Ireland]]. If any of you
would like to take a look, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#Proposed_move_to_Ireland
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ireland#Proposed_move_to_Ireland_.28island.29
.

At least I'd like advice as to how we can get out of this mess.

Michael Everson

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




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

If we could get something that reads the searches and tabulates the most frequently not found articles, we could better target our account creation efforts.




________________________________
From: David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:08:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland

2008/11/26 David Yellope <sirfozzie@gmail.com>:

> Again, this is not the place for it. I see you've brought it up with Jimbo
> and elsewhere, so please stop canvassing a EN-WP dispute in places it
> doesn't belong.


I've been suggesting on wikien-l something like trying to work out,
with actual numbers, what article readers would reasonably be
expecting where. This led to suggesting an idea on wikitech-l on how
to gather internal referer logs (where people go from one article to
another, or what searches lead to what articles) in a way that won't
breach privacy. Such information would be of great general use in
seeing what readers actually want and do, rather than attempting to
guess. So it's far from a fruitless discussion.


- d.

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




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

2008/11/27 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:

> If we could get something that reads the searches and tabulates the most frequently not found articles, we could better target our account creation efforts.


Hence my suggestion on wikitech-l :-)

Logging referers as well as the name of the page hit wouldn't load the
current logging significantly. Only logging referers that are in
article space or Special:Search (with the search) would guard against
most possible privacy problems. (Greg Maxwell noted that people may
enter private identifying data into Special:Search which would then be
logged. Possibly might warrant a warning note on Special:Search.)

What it needs now is someone writing code to log and to analyse and
present the logs, and the code being approved ;-)


- d.

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

The thing that I am thinking of would only list things are searched over 150 times in a set period, no privacy concerns necessary




________________________________
From: David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:01:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland

2008/11/27 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:

> If we could get something that reads the searches and tabulates the most frequently not found articles, we could better target our account creation efforts.


Hence my suggestion on wikitech-l :-)

Logging referers as well as the name of the page hit wouldn't load the
current logging significantly. Only logging referers that are in
article space or Special:Search (with the search) would guard against
most possible privacy problems. (Greg Maxwell noted that people may
enter private identifying data into Special:Search which would then be
logged. Possibly might warrant a warning note on Special:Search.)

What it needs now is someone writing code to log and to analyse and
present the logs, and the code being approved ;-)


- d.

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




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