In preparation for a new RfC on enwiki regarding new guidelines for the Portal system, we (WikiProject Portals) would like to gain additional insight into how much the current portal system is currently used. We can get easy stuff like view count already, but that does not take into account other more detailed aspects. Such as:
- How many people clicked on a portal link from an article, or a category?
- Which articles, and which categories generated the highest traffic?
- How many people followed through to another article from the portal, or just closed the tab?
- Which articles and portals had the highest engagement? (useful for replicating their success)
- How many people even scroll to the bottom of the article and even had the opportunity to notice the portal link?
- About what article size tends to result in zero portal link visibility?
I'm not sure how detailed the analytics are the WMF is currently collecting, so some of this may not be plausible at this time. I'm basing this off of the various studies I've seen run, like the recent citation usage study. Granted, that is a more involved example, and I'm not asking you to make schema changes to facilitate this or anything.
This whole thing stems from the infamous RfC back in April, calling for the deletion of the Portal namespace, which was closed with no consensus. Since then, we've rebooted WikiProject Portals, and have overhauled most of the portals (which currently number around 5200) with new tech we've been building to make portal creation and maintenance easier, as well as adding new features not previously possible over a decade ago when the namespace was created.
The original problem hasn't disappeared however. There are those who would like to expand the number of portals significantly, while others would see portals removed, or at least reduced by an order of magnitude. The mechanism for this would be the portal guidelines, which would determine the criteria a portal must meet in order to exist. Before we propose a new set of guidelines, we want to collect some actual data to base our discussion on, rather than just opinion.