Research talk:Community portal redesign

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Comparison with other Wikimedia CPs[edit]

A selected handful of sister projects, to see how they're setup. Feel free to add or annotate this table. Quiddity (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal Usage notes
(translation)de:Wikipedia:Autorenportal 13 sections:
  • Help for newcomers (majority of content)
  • Articles undergoing review
  • Meetups and events
(translation)es:Portal:Comunidad 4 sections:
  • Closely copies the current en: design.
(translation)fr:Wikipédia:Accueil de la communauté 7 sections:
  • Help for newcomers
  • Project news and Rfx news
  • Meta descriptions
(translation)ja:Wikipedia:コミュニティ・ポータル ~4 sections:
  • Task list for editors
  • Meta news
  • Article assessment news
  • RFCs
  • Help hidden, in template at bottom
simple:Wikipedia:Simple start 4 sections:
  • Task list
  • Communication overview
  • Interwiki coordination
  • Help
wikt:Wiktionary:Community Portal 3 sections:
  • Communication overview
  • Help for newcomers
  • Task list
commons:Commons:Community portal 4 sections:
  • Communication overview
  • Task list
  • Help
  • Policies
Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Community Portal 4 sections:

close copy of Commons

Wikisource:Wikisource:Community Portal 2 sections:
  • Task lists
  • Help for newcomers
Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Community Portal 6 sections:
  • Help for newcomers
  • Task lists
  • Communication overview
  • Meta news
wikibooks:Wikibooks:Community Portal 1 section:
  • Minimal help, incl. task list
wikinews:Wikinews:Newsroom 3 sections
  • Task list
  • Communication overview
  • Help

This is purely for curiosity. I grok that the proposed redesign at en: will be radically different! But still, hopefully this is insightful for someone. Quiddity (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open tasks[edit]

I've spent some time today looking at the code behind User:flBot (which used to update en:Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask) and thinking about ways of choosing which articles are listed. From what I can tell from the source code flBot selected articles randomly. Another strategy, which is already mentioned, is attempting to maximise value for the community by prioritising articles that have low quality and high popularity (it would require some bookkeeping, but it's doable), based on the assumption that value is (mostly) determined by views. Lastly one can also prioritise articles that have not been edited for a long time (this is easy), although that might be more interesting for more experienced editors (potential AfDs?) and not so much fit less experienced editors?

The flBot-code isn't too complicated so I'll ask the owner if they're OK with me taking over the code and moving towards having SuggestBot updating the list of open tasks.

Feel free to comment :) Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. Low-quality/High-popularity would be interesting. Could also prioritize based on low-quality and high-importance, taking that data from the wikiproject talkpage tags. However, they're often the most complicated articles to work on, and hence languishing. (eg, from wikiproject biology, the list of Top-importance Start-quality articles) Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up to you both that we might have clicktracking set up on that page tomorrow (just a high-level measurement of clickrates on all the links on the page; nothing too fancy) to give us some data about which links are currently visited. So please don't go crazy clicking on stuff or you're skew the data collection ;) I'll post a note on the talk page tomorrow if it does indeed go live (there's a chance we'll have to wait a bit longer for it, but I'm cautiously optimistic). Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why at Meta[edit]

I'm curious - since this page is about the English Wikipedia, why isn't it at en:Wikipedia:Community portal redesign or en:Wikipedia:Community portal/Redesign? Having it at Meta means that the users who are most likely to want to be involved are much less likely to find/participate/see updates on their watchlist than if it was at Wikipedia. If you need a Meta: page because of the Editor Engagement Project, it seems like it would make more sense to have it as a soft redirect to the English Wikipedia. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point! I started this here simply to follow the E3 documentation convention so far, but I can make a dupe (with maybe a bit less messy brainstorming/note-taking) over on en. Thanks for the suggestion :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Subpage created here, and link posted on Wikipedia talk:Community portal. Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]