Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/In the news

Discuss this story

Sitewide watchlist is what makes Wikipedia work

For those of us who have done web work almost as long as visual browsers have been around, the reason Wikipedia has exploded is that a single page, the watchlist, keeps one instantly up to date on a horde of pages and images one has worked on. One can come back weeks, months, or even years later, and start right back up working on one's interests. Concerning overseeing the creation of concise, in-depth, continually-evolving articles on any topic nothing beats the watchlist. Blogs suck in comparison since they just pile up info without making it concise. Website software (offline or online) is a pain to use in comparison to wiki editing. As concerns the quality of info Wikia sucks in comparison to Wikipedia. Wikia does not have a sitewide watchlist. Every tiny or big wiki has a separate watchlist. MediaWiki developers need to create integrated watchlists for wiki farms. Then indepth info illustrated with images and videos will spread and explode beyond Wikipedia. Semiprofit Benefit Corporations with wiki farms using MediaWiki with integrated watchlists could change the internet world. Serious info, imagery, graphics, animation, and video collaboration could spread way beyond Wikipedia. But not without something as simple but necessary as a sitewide watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a priority for the Foundation developers might well be to enable the watchlisting of individual sections—the advantage would be for discussion pages rather than articles.

Tony (talk)

13:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation might know that, were they to attempt to talk to experienced editors. Instead they worry about what the lurkers emailing each other about Wikipedia & throw limited resources at unwanted things like image filters. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, LQT has attracted a considerable amount of Foundation resources (not enough? too much? you decide), and that would enabled you to watch individual threads. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TimeShifter: Just to clarify, are you proposing shared watchlist between different wikis hosted by the same folks (fairly easy to do all in all I'd imagine), or a shared watchlist feature that spans wikis hosted by separate people (Which is an interesting idea, but more difficult to do, at least in a non-naive way of just checking every single wiki involved). Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Timeshifter, but a global watchlist has been one of those perennial requests that was an old idea when we discussed it on the Strategy wiki. I have edits on dozens of wikimedia wikis, it would be great if some of those could pool watchlists - even if only ones that shared a server. Of course there's the risk that if it was developed it would be as temperamental as liquid threads was in its early days. But the solution to that is more testing before rollout, the devs do have a decent sized test wiki don't they? And though I'm a supporter of the Image filter it would be cool if we were consulted on the relative importance of possible developments - I bet the community would put global watchlists and a score other useful and uncontentious changes ahead of an image filter. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bawolff. I would like to see both types of combined watchlists created. There is a small amount of work done towards an integrated watchlist for all the Wikimedia projects. That needs to be finished. A cross-site watchlist between Wikipedia, Wikia, other wiki farms, and other wiki sites would be way cool too. A universal watchlist where one could select what wikis to include. I would keep Wikipedia separate myself since I have a lot of pages I watch on it. I would put all the minor Wikimedia projects, minor wikis from Wikia, and many other wiki sites on a universal watchlist. The main Wikia wiki that I edit on I use recent changes since I am an admin on it. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki watchlists: There is a script ;) [1] User:Yair rand User:Hans Adler User:Ocaasi User:UncleDouggie --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have it installed. See Integrated watchlist#Existing tools and User:Yair rand/interwikiwatchlist.js and its talk page: User talk:Yair rand/interwikiwatchlist.js - see how-to note at top. I have it installed so that it also shows my Commons watchlist at the top of my Wikipedia watchlist. The add-on Commons watchlist only shows edits by others today. It is not currently possible to also show one's own edits on the Commons. Also, "today's" edits means only those edits on today's date. So if one is only a few hours into today one only sees edits by others during those few hours. There is no way currently to see 24 hours, or the last 2 days, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google makes Wikipedia work

What makes Wikipedia work is Google's de facto marketing subsidy of it in terms of search ranking promotion. But nobody (in academia) seems to want to think about that :-( . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is popular. That is why it is at the top of Google rankings, or in the top 10 in many search results. Wikipedia is not popular because of Google. I often look for Wikipedia pages first when looking for info. Many other people feel this way, too. People link frequently to Wikipedia pages from their websites, blogs, other wikis, etc.. I do from all 3. Google algorithms see all this popularity and put Wikipedia pages high up in search results. Of course, that further amplifies Wikipedia's popularity. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a symbiosis between Google and Wikipedia. Google keeps Wikipedia in the public eye and a fraction of a fraction that use it become active contributors. A decent quality and vast store of non-commercial information in the form of Wikipedia articles keeps Google relevant. You want info fast? You google it. BAM, there's the Wikipedia article and the answer. Quick and simple. We shouldn't flatter ourselves to think that Google rankings had no part in WP attaining "critical mass," just like they would be stupid to ignore the enormous free "value" that WP provides to them and their search engine. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The egg, of course. Eggs existed long before chickens, and the first chicken almost certainly hatched out of an egg laid by the chicken-ancestor (while abstractly the chicken-ancestor might not have been an egg-laying creature, in terms of how evolution works, it's virtually certain it was very nearly a chicken rather than something dramatically different in terms of how it produced young). Similarly, there were/are a large number of would-be Wikipedias (content-farming is a cliche), but there is only one Google. Hence Google is what matters. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wikipedia laid the Golden Egg. :>? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

while i tend to buy the "wikipedia as freeware front end for non-commercial google status enhancement" thesis; i seem to recall other engines. best but not only? Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia makes Google work", the other way around is possibly more true, Wikipedia made Yahoo redundant, u need human resources to grade hyperlinks, Wikipedia does it for Google ;o) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]