Jump to content

User talk:CKoerner (WMF)/Interwiki Searches

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 8 years ago by CKoerner (WMF) in topic Future home

Looks good, if any prototypes are available for possible future solutions or scenarios to think about, it would make it easier to visualize.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Definitely check out the "Existing Examples" section. The Italian Wikipedia has been doing cross-wiki searching for themselves for a while. TJones (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Assumption

[edit]

"Searching for "Paris, France" and seeing generally the same article in French, German, and English wouldn't help much in discovering new information". I haven't checked whether this is the case with Paris, but it is a fact that articles' content can vary, even a lot, among the various languages; almost always they are not a mere translation of (say) the English one. Knowing that I will find different content (sometimes culturally nuanced, so to say) is the reason why I visit multiple other wiki sites in the first place, and this is particularly true for me for sister sites like Wikivoyage. (Too bad we actually don't have a way, AFAIK, to "measure" or display how different articles are - not just in length terms, that is. Maybe the search results may somehow highlight this?). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I believe the proposal was to not do cross-language searching. Chris, maybe that should be a little clearer? It would be interesting to try to measure differences in article quality across languages (though not for this project). Length is a decent and very easy measure. We have some automated article quality tools, too, which could help. TJones (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
My comment doesn't seem to make much sense, now that I read it again (I mean, I think it does in regard to the general assumption behind it, not in regard to what is reasonable/makes sense to expect from search results). I see you're addressing cross-language issues already. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Future home

[edit]

I think this should be moved to a new page along with Jan's sub page. Here are my proposals. Feel free to argue semantics. :)

Main page

Design page

I think 'cross-wiki' is a little easier to translate and understand that inter-wiki (the whole intranet/internet thing is confusing). I also think that SERP is a bit of jargon we can make simpler. While most of the Product department has their documentation on MediaWiki.org, this is a significant change that will involved multi-project input. I argue that it should remain here on Meta for more visibility.

Does anyone have additional suggestions or strong opinions against these ideas? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is cross-wiki as established (and hence translated) in the Wikimedian jargon as interwiki is? I am partial to mw.org, because it definitely has more visibility there (our movement + 3rd parties ;) ). Luckily we have redirects, in case. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Cross-wiki makes a bit more sense - I think - in a real world scenario, because these new search results will be gathered across projects of the same language. I think the intra- or inter- usage would create too much confusion as far as what do we really mean (in regards to the new search results and how we're gathering them). I also prefer mediawiki for this document, as the vast majority of other Discovery product documentation is there already and keeping it together is a good thing, IMHO. Redirects for the win! ;) deb (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think both terms have a historical meaning in Wikimedia. Cross-wiki notifications, and interwiki links are both existing terms. In casual conversation between people, I think "cross-wiki" would be more approachable. I'll move the pages to MediaWiki.org and soon and update the language to reflect 'cross-wiki'. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply