Mailing List Archive

1 2 3 4 5 6  View All
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
> > deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
> > staff in general to be salesman for it - it is scaring the community
> > that all WMF staff seem to be so heavily vested in this 'product' as
> > the salvation of the wikis.
> >
>
> This is rank hyperbole.
>
> The MediaWiki deployment train delivers new software to all projects every
> week. One stage is to non-Wikipedia projects, which actually get new
> software *first.* Then in a second stage is for all Wikipedias
> simultaneously. So the default behavior for rollouts, if all you do is
> merge your code and wait, is that English Wikipedia gets basically no
> special treatment..[1]
>
> Now, for larger feature rollouts like VisualEditor or MediaViewer, the
> testing stage and eventual launch set their own special schedule. We have
> used English Wikipedia as a testing ground a lot in the past, which is
> natural when you consider a variety of factors.[2] That doesn't mean we
> haven't worked hard to test things out with non-English projects. Some
> examples:
>



I am sure you have tested things out on various wikis, but I can confirm
that seeing things been rolled out from a non-English wiki, they multiple
times look like if the English community has requested it or has been
copied from. One (large) example is the TemplateData part of the
VisualEditor which seems to us (nl-wiki) copied from the English Wikipedia,
in multiple ways. This is not how we work with templates. And I can name
many more examples.

Maybe it is not intended to adopt or specially fit with the English
Wikipedia, if I compare software changes with the English Wikipedia and
with the Dutch Wikipedia, most changes seem to fit exactly like the English
Wikipedia and not with the Dutch Wikipedia. So many times it is locally
thought and said that a change is likely "requested" by the English
community.

Not that we make such big deal of it as we are already used to it, still
this is how it is seen by at least some communities.

Romaine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
>> > deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
>> > staff in general to be salesman for it - it is scaring the community
>> > that all WMF staff seem to be so heavily vested in this 'product' as
>> > the salvation of the wikis.
>> >
>>
>> This is rank hyperbole.
>>
>> The MediaWiki deployment train delivers new software to all projects every
>> week. One stage is to non-Wikipedia projects, which actually get new
>> software *first.* Then in a second stage is for all Wikipedias
>> simultaneously. So the default behavior for rollouts, if all you do is
>> merge your code and wait, is that English Wikipedia gets basically no
>> special treatment..[1]
>>
>> Now, for larger feature rollouts like VisualEditor or MediaViewer, the
>> testing stage and eventual launch set their own special schedule. We have
>> used English Wikipedia as a testing ground a lot in the past, which is
>> natural when you consider a variety of factors.[2] That doesn't mean we
>> haven't worked hard to test things out with non-English projects. Some
>> examples:
>>
>
>
>
> I am sure you have tested things out on various wikis, but I can confirm
> that seeing things been rolled out from a non-English wiki, they multiple
> times look like if the English community has requested it or has been
> copied from. One (large) example is the TemplateData part of the
> VisualEditor which seems to us (nl-wiki) copied from the English Wikipedia,
> in multiple ways. This is not how we work with templates.

IIRC Visual Editor depends on writing TemplateData JSON for all your
projects templates, using a mix of local language (parameter
descriptions) and English (JSON keywords), which works real well for
languages like Arabic and Hebrew.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
> Fundamentally, I'd ask people to relax a bit regarding Flow. Nobody's
> planning to push this one out radically. Today we saw some on-wiki
> drama because a new test page was turned on. For something like the
> en.wp Teahouse, I'd want the hosts to be fully on-board before
> converting it over (and the rest of the community to not oppose it).
> If that's not doable, we can focus on other use cases first. It's
> early days and this one's a long haul -- just like VE. But we
> shouldn't shy away from a problem just because it's hard.

I think this is one of the points some of us here are trying to make.
We *don't* want Flow to be just like VE. We want it to be a good piece
of software that is rolled out smoothly.

There are some serious communication problems that I can already see
having a toll. Fractured discussions, issues/concerns not captured in
workflows, and many members of the community who feel like they
haven't been heard out during earlier stages of the project. We have
an opportunity to not get all wound around the axle like we have been
with MV, and that opportunity should not be thrown away.

Quite frankly, the WMF could do a lot more to improve communications
across the community with respect to Flow. Pick one forum and redirect
discussions- even this one- to it. Right now there are a few
candidates. Make sure all the takeaways from those discussions are
captured in workflows; don't let ideas get lost in archives. Choose
one place to keep your backlog- bugzilla or trello- and stick with it.
You'll need the community's help to see what works for the different
roles everyone must play to make software that works well for its
users. But the community needs your help in organizing the highly
detailed communications with users that is always required to build
good software.

It good to hear you say that this is a long haul, because Flow
obviously has a ways to go. But that doesn't mean it has to be a death
march to the same reception as VE or MV. Let's all be smarter this
time. Learning how to communicate better is a great place to start,
and I hope the feedback I've given here is helpful. Please let me know
if there is anything you can think of that I- or anyone else in the
broader community- can do to help you hit this one out of the park.

,Wil

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
I would suggest aiming for a series of base hits. (: An attempt was made
to hit VE out of the park. We know how well that worked.

I think a lot of the work of capturing suggestions is supposed to be done
by the project manager and the engineering community liaisons. It would be
interesting to have community ideas documented in a single, public,
searchable, well-organized location. The project manager and community
liaison could be the curators.

It might be good for people who are interested in Flow to attend the Flow
IRC office hours, and join in the Flow discussions on the Editor Engagement
email list.

Pine

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Wil Sinclair <wllm@wllm.com> wrote:

> > Fundamentally, I'd ask people to relax a bit regarding Flow. Nobody's
> > planning to push this one out radically. Today we saw some on-wiki
> > drama because a new test page was turned on. For something like the
> > en.wp Teahouse, I'd want the hosts to be fully on-board before
> > converting it over (and the rest of the community to not oppose it).
> > If that's not doable, we can focus on other use cases first. It's
> > early days and this one's a long haul -- just like VE. But we
> > shouldn't shy away from a problem just because it's hard.
>
> I think this is one of the points some of us here are trying to make.
> We *don't* want Flow to be just like VE. We want it to be a good piece
> of software that is rolled out smoothly.
>
> There are some serious communication problems that I can already see
> having a toll. Fractured discussions, issues/concerns not captured in
> workflows, and many members of the community who feel like they
> haven't been heard out during earlier stages of the project. We have
> an opportunity to not get all wound around the axle like we have been
> with MV, and that opportunity should not be thrown away.
>
> Quite frankly, the WMF could do a lot more to improve communications
> across the community with respect to Flow. Pick one forum and redirect
> discussions- even this one- to it. Right now there are a few
> candidates. Make sure all the takeaways from those discussions are
> captured in workflows; don't let ideas get lost in archives. Choose
> one place to keep your backlog- bugzilla or trello- and stick with it.
> You'll need the community's help to see what works for the different
> roles everyone must play to make software that works well for its
> users. But the community needs your help in organizing the highly
> detailed communications with users that is always required to build
> good software.
>
> It good to hear you say that this is a long haul, because Flow
> obviously has a ways to go. But that doesn't mean it has to be a death
> march to the same reception as VE or MV. Let's all be smarter this
> time. Learning how to communicate better is a great place to start,
> and I hope the feedback I've given here is helpful. Please let me know
> if there is anything you can think of that I- or anyone else in the
> broader community- can do to help you hit this one out of the park.
>
> ,Wil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
I like your story and I understand the sentiment. For me the story is about
the kind of functionality that we may or may not need in Flow. The story is
not about retaining what went before.. Mark my words, I cannot wait for the
old talk system to go.

As I understand the current situation, Flow is gaining in functionality and
it is being used in all kinds of settings. As time goes by, it becomes
feature rich and increasingly versatile. I am sure the husband "learned"
from the first time an egg was presented to his wife. I am sure they shared
fond memories of this moment of embarrassment. Life is short and learning
how to improve your ways makes life more pleasant.

The lessons of the egg are for all of us. Do not single out anyone and do
not think any of us is beyond the need of learning from past mistakes.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 7 September 2014 03:17, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not going to reply in-line here, because I think there's been an
> undoubtedly unintentional missing of the point here. Instead I will tell a
> story about a friend of mine.
>
> Some years ago, when her children were 3 and 4, their family had a lovely
> traditional Christmas Day, but something felt like it was "missing". She
> told her husband about a tradition in her own family, where she and her
> siblings had (since they were very young children) always bought their
> mother a Terry's Chocolate Orange for Christmas - no matter what else her
> mom got, that was considered the one "essential" Christmas gift under the
> tree. Mom would glow with joy when she unwrapped it, and her most
> heartfelt thanks was for this specific present. Some time later in the
> day, she'd smack it open and everyone would get a piece. My friend thought
> it would be wonderful to start a similar tradition in her own young family.
>
> Her husband remembered this story in the weeks leading up to the next
> Christmas. He plotted with the children, now 4 and 5; he researched the
> "best" types of similar treats; and ultimately he "helped" the children
> obtain a chocolate orange made of the finest Swiss chocolate, filled with
> Grand Marnier liqueur, presented in an elegant marquetry box. Everyone was
> surprised when she burst into tears instead of smiles, and spent the whole
> day snapping at people and generally being a grouch. Finally her husband
> confronted her and insisted she explain her behaviour.
>
> What happened, of course, was that despite his best efforts, he'd missed
> the real purpose of the chocolate orange. He thought it was symbolic of
> the esteem in which the matriarch was held. Really, it was about the
> familial sharing of a special treat; the joy that the sharing brought to
> both the recipient and the presenters. But she couldn't share
> liqueur-filled chocolate with her children, and could barely bring herself
> to smack open the beautifully designed and presented chocolate. In other
> words, even though the gift looked brilliant on paper, it missed the point.
>
> I think the design of Flow is much like the liqueur-filled chocolates.
> It's missed the point of a discussion space on Wikimedia projects. All the
> use cases in the world, no matter how carefully researched and accounted
> for, will help you build a discussion system to effectively replace a
> discussion system if you don't understand that the one overriding,
> incontrovertible feature of the current system is that it is a page that
> acts just like all the other wiki pages, with all the same functions, and
> anyone who can work on one wiki-page can work on any of them. In other
> words, you're building something that is explicitly different from
> wiki-pages - but the expectation of the majority of the people who will use
> these pages is that they work exactly like any other wiki-page.
>
> This is what I mean when I say that you've not really understood how
> wiki-discussion functions, and you've created the "bells and whistles"
> without demonstrating an understanding of what the real, core functions of
> these pages are. The priority in design should focus on being able to
> produce identical results for basic wiki-editing and page management: we
> move pages, we protect them, we undo and revert edits, we fix typos and
> correct URLS and links in each other's posts, we quote each other and
> copy/paste, we modify each other's words when collaborating on the wording
> of a complex section of an article, we get rid of trolling, we delete and
> sometimes suppress personal attacks, we hat and archive individual
> discussions. Whether or not a post gets auto-signed is a "frill" compared
> to those basic functions, and it is inevitable that the deprioritization of
> "the basics" will result in people not really caring much about the frills
> (no matter how well they are executed) and focusing instead on what the
> new "system" doesn't do. This is the real parallel between Flow and Visual
> Editor - focusing on the "difference" between the new product and that it
> was intended to replace, instead of ensuring that things that had to be
> similar or identical were considered the first step of design.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
> On 6 September 2014 02:13, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The major deficiencies that have long been identified in the current
> > > discussion system (and that can be addressed by technology) are all
> able
> > to
> > > be addressed in MediaWiki software or by extensions. Automatic
> signatures
> > > have been done by bots for years; indenting could be added to the
> editing
> > > function gadget and moved to an extension; much work has already been
> > done
> > > on graceful resolution of edit conflicts. The ability to watchlist an
> > > individual thread or section of a page is more challenging but, I have
> > been
> > > told, still possible.
> >
> > Let's just acknowledge that the limitations of what can reasonably be
> > layered onto wikitext-based representation of comments have not been
> > fully explored, rather than jumping to conclusions about what's easy
> > to address and what's hard. As noted separately, I agree it may be
> > worth pushing the boundaries a bit more on this, if only to know
> > exactly where they are, and to achieve short term improvements.
> >
> > > Automatic signature (something that is currently
> > > functional on Flow, but is not customizable) turns out to be more of a
> > > challenge when users are widely known by a signature line that doesn't
> > > match their username,
> >
> > I've not talked to them about it explicitly, but I'd guess that the PM
> > and the UX folks have a negative aversion against custom signatures
> > because of their free-form nature (including sometimes
> > layout-exploding ones). Perhaps a middle-ground can be found here,
> > with some more sanitization applied to prevent some of the
> > sigs-from-hell occasionally found. Other than that I can't see a good
> > reason to not just show them when they're set, and it's certainly
> > technically trivial to do so.
> >
> > > and there is no method by which users can add an
> > > "explanatory" note to their signature such as "formerly known as
> > > User:Whatever".
> >
> > From the point forward that Flow is in wide use, a user rename would
> > be automatically reflected in old comments if desired, much as it is
> > reflected in old edits. But if signatures were supported, as above,
> > you could still use them for these types of indicators, as well.
> >
> > > The "more efficient" indenting has reduced possible
> > > indents to three levels, without exception;
> >
> > This seems to be the most religious topic when it comes to Flow. The
> > database stores all threading information. It'd be trivial to expand
> > the threading level if that's more popular and usable.
> >
> > I've heard the argument that this doesn't work on mobile, but we could
> > just set a different threading level on mobile.
> >
> > I think it's worth experimenting with flat pages (with quoting) for
> > certain purposes, and Danny wants to, but it strikes me as most
> > reasonable to start with something that more closely resembles talk
> > pages as they are now (which is why we did that with LQT originally).
> >
> > > "Rigid predictable technical
> > > restrictions on who can edit what" has resulted in inability to remove
> > > posts that are obviously unsuitable (there's no "undo" or "revert"
> > > function), replaced with a "hide" function that can only be applied by
> > > certain users that's practically a red flag for people to look-see what
> > the
> > > problem edit is.
> >
> > The team has pretty strong arguments why they don't want posts to be
> > editable (the gist is, they fear that no other discussion system does
> > this, and it will freak people out -- they see the introduction of a
> > new system as a good opportunity to reset expectations). I personaly
> > am not religious about it; when we built LQT we made posts editable
> > (and made it clear who had edited someone else's posts) to preserve
> > that normal aspect of wiki-style editing. I think we should keep
> > talking about this.
> >
> > I've not seen it named as a dealbreaker for small scale deployments.
> > The architecture can easily support both models.
> >
> > > At the core is whether or not there is value in developing a
> "discussion
> > > system" that is radically divorced from any other interface used by the
> > > system.
> >
> > That's a legitimate question, although it's not as "radically
> > divorced" as you would think; ultimately it'll use the VisualEditor
> > (probably with a simplified toolbar by default) just like Flow does.
> >
> > As for the claim that the team never looked at current use cases,
> > having spent hours in rooms with them where they pored over printouts
> > of hundreds of talk pages, analyzed use cases, categorized them,
> > prioritized them, etc., I can assure you there's been a lot more of
> > this kind of thinking than you appreciate. There also have been round
> > tables and other outreach efforts, and a dedicated community liaison
> > from the start. Still, I don't think there's been enough talking to
> > each other -- we're still getting better at doing that, collectively,
> > and trusting in the value of conversation even when there's a lot of
> > noise and a lot of heat.
> >
> > This is an opportunity for me to remind folks that the cost of heat
> > (accusations, insults, reverts, etc.) is that people withdraw. We
> > (WMF) have to do our part to prevent things from getting heated, but
> > I'd ask folks who notice this kind of thing and who understand why
> > it's harmful to help step in and contribute to a calm, rational,
> > constructive dialog, as well. I can take a lot of heat, as you may
> > have noticed, but a lot of folks just tend to back away when things
> > get personal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Erik
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
2014-09-07 4:17 GMT+03:00 Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>:
> I think the design of Flow is much like the liqueur-filled chocolates.
> It's missed the point of a discussion space on Wikimedia projects. All
the
> use cases in the world, no matter how carefully researched and accounted
> for, will help you build a discussion system to effectively replace a
> discussion system if you don't understand that the one overriding,
> incontrovertible feature of the current system is that it is a page that
> acts just like all the other wiki pages, with all the same functions, and
> anyone who can work on one wiki-page can work on any of them.

I see your point, but the fact is that the current system is NOT a page
that acts just like all the other wiki pages.

Talk pages use categories differently.
Article talk pages, for better or worse, don't have interlanguage links.
Talk pages use : for indentation a lot; articles rarely use this piece of
syntax.
Talk pages can use templates the same way as articles, but the actual
templates used on them are different.
Long talk pages are archived; articles aren't.
Talk pages have signatures; articles, for better or worse, don't.
Talk pages rarely have images.

So yes, the wiki syntax is the same, but the practice of its use is
fundamentally different. And voila - the wiki syntax in Flow works much the
same way as elsewhere - links, templates, etc. The plan is to use the same
VisualEditor as for articles in the future. What Flow replaces is the
crutches built to force wiki pages into being discussion forums -
"talkback", indentation, archive templates and bots, the infinite edit
conflicts, etc.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
On 09/06/2014 17:06 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

>On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
>> if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
>> wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
>
>You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
>collaborative discussion benefits from being a wiki (as opposed to, you
>know, the actual content).

Wikipedia has been built using that platform. I'd say that's a very good
reason to trust that the model is at least capable. :-)



>Very many people, myself included, believe that a wiki page is an
>*atrocious* medium for discussion.

Sure, and I agree there are many way to improve how users are
engaged into discussion and to keep it manageable. But what is
missing from this conversation is the point that Wikipedia talk
space is not *merely* a medium for discussion: there are other vital
roles that may be hindered by a radical focus on conversation:

tl;dr version: there are times and places that Wikipedia discussion
system needs to be a Microsoft OneNote, and Flow is building us
a Twitter (minus the 140 characters limit).


- The talk space has a strong expectation that it serves as an
archive of all decisions taken in building the articles, i.e. to
show how the sausages are made. The disembodied nature
of Flow topics, which may be shown out of order and distributed
to many boards, makes it hard to recover a sequential view of the
conversations in order as they happened.

- Same thing for keeping user's behavior in check - policy
enforcement often requires that the reviewers can see exactly
what the users saw when they performed some particular
disruptive action, to assess whether it was made in good faith
from incomplete information or a misunderstanding.

- Comment-based discussion is not the only way editors collaborate;
nor discussions are limited to users expressing their particular views
at ordered, pre-defined processes. Some fellow users have already
pointed out how the wiki page works as a shared whiteboard where
semi-structured or free-form content can be worked upon by several
editors, and improved iteratively in an opportunistic way.
Sometimes, that re-shaping of text is made onto the
form of the conversation itself, by re-factoring, splitting, merging
and re-classifying comments from many editors. This would be
hard or impossible to do if the layout of the discussion is fixed
in hardware and comments belong to the poster.

- Wikiprojects develop over time new procedures that better suit
the workflow of their members to achieve their goals. Their
project pages are free-form collages of all the relevant information
they require to do their work, plus discussion processes that may
involve just its members or any other external participant. As
projects cover all the aspects of human knowledge, it would be
difficult to provide a one-size-fits-all interface that may cover all
their needs - the flexibility to compose new layouts and
compilations of content is core to achieve their goals.

- There's a sense now that the community owns the content of all
pages including talk, and can manage it to their liking. That will
disappear if the base model is changed to one based on user-owned
comments. There has not been enough discussion of how that will
affect all the existing projects and guidelines, or whether such change
is acceptable and beneficial to the goal of writing the encyclopedia.


A wiki-like system is very good at achieving those. Some of these
needs have surfaced at previous discussion at Talk:Flow, and some have
been already addressed or influenced the design, but some others are
squarely opposed to the nature of a threaded discussion where the
structure is enforced by the platform. It would be sensible that the
process to gather feedback from the community includes solid answers
to these facets of the tool.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> The team has pretty strong arguments why they don't want posts to be
> editable (the gist is, they fear that no other discussion system does
> this, and it will freak people out -- they see the introduction of a
> new system as a good opportunity to reset expectations).


I would argue that the best and most successful examples of knowledge
production oriented discussion systems allow the editing of posts by
others. Quora has that feature. Stackoverflow has that feature. The edit
might be sent through a review queue depending on your reputation, but from
the user's point of view that's not a big difference, and the bar is pretty
low - Stackoverflow allows direct editing from 2000 reputation points,
while access to the various queues (which is the closest equivalent to
being a Wikipedia admin) comes after 10,000 points. (An active user can
easily earn 100 or more points a week, so 2000 points mean a few months of
using the site.)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
response to ACTRIAL?

If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes panned
out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and
built a set of tools to directly address that problem without compromising
the core value of openness"?

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients
> and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved,
> since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC).
> Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?
>
> Pete
> On Sep 1, 2014 4:38 PM, "Risker" <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to
>> concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles
>> showing up in mainspace?
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>> On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker <joedecker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the WMF's
>> > response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional feedback
>> > given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am aware
>> of.
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
>> >
>> > --Joe
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints,
>> > because
>> > > the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort
>> to
>> > > produce.
>> > >
>> > > The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and
>> spam
>> > > from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully,
>> and
>> > > those who are newbies who genuinely want to help but need guidance get
>> > > caught in the crossfire aimed at the vandals and spammers. It is
>> > relatively
>> > > rare that when a genuinely new editor's first edit is a creation, it
>> is
>> > the
>> > > creation of an appropriate article on a workable subject, and that's
>> > > normally more by dumb luck than them having actual knowledge that they
>> > > should do it.
>> > >
>> > > So, consider that a complaint. The proposed fix didn't work, and most
>> > > people at the time didn't figure it would work, but it was clearly the
>> > best
>> > > we were going to get.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
>> > > pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned
>> > above.
>> > > > The
>> > > > > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and
>> the
>> > > WMF
>> > > > > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not."
>> > > >
>> > > > That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I
>> remember
>> > > was
>> > > > that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members came
>> > > together
>> > > > and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to fix it and asked
>> the
>> > > WMF
>> > > > to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a basic
>> > > project
>> > > > value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying to
>> > > > solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly address
>> that
>> > > > problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it
>> seems
>> > to
>> > > > have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of
>> complaints
>> > > > about that problem since.
>> > > >
>> > > > ______________________
>> > > > Philippe Beaudette
>> > > > Director, Community Advocacy
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Joe Decker
>> > www.joedecker.net
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
Hi Pete,

Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.

Pine
On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was
> the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
> Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
> response to ACTRIAL?
>
> If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes panned
> out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and
> built a set of tools to directly address that problem without compromising
> the core value of openness"?
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients
> > and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's
> solved,
> > since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC).
> > Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?
> >
> > Pete
> > On Sep 1, 2014 4:38 PM, "Risker" <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response
> to
> >> concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles
> >> showing up in mainspace?
> >>
> >> Risker/Anne
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker <joedecker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the
> WMF's
> >> > response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional feedback
> >> > given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am aware
> >> of.
> >> >
> >> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
> >> >
> >> > --Joe
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints,
> >> > because
> >> > > the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort
> >> to
> >> > > produce.
> >> > >
> >> > > The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and
> >> spam
> >> > > from people who never have the slightest intent of editing
> helpfully,
> >> and
> >> > > those who are newbies who genuinely want to help but need guidance
> get
> >> > > caught in the crossfire aimed at the vandals and spammers. It is
> >> > relatively
> >> > > rare that when a genuinely new editor's first edit is a creation, it
> >> is
> >> > the
> >> > > creation of an appropriate article on a workable subject, and that's
> >> > > normally more by dumb luck than them having actual knowledge that
> they
> >> > > should do it.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, consider that a complaint. The proposed fix didn't work, and
> most
> >> > > people at the time didn't figure it would work, but it was clearly
> the
> >> > best
> >> > > we were going to get.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
> >> > > pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned
> >> > above.
> >> > > > The
> >> > > > > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change,
> and
> >> the
> >> > > WMF
> >> > > > > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I
> >> remember
> >> > > was
> >> > > > that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members came
> >> > > together
> >> > > > and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to fix it and asked
> >> the
> >> > > WMF
> >> > > > to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a basic
> >> > > project
> >> > > > value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying
> to
> >> > > > solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly address
> >> that
> >> > > > problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it
> >> seems
> >> > to
> >> > > > have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of
> >> complaints
> >> > > > about that problem since.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ______________________
> >> > > > Philippe Beaudette
> >> > > > Director, Community Advocacy
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> > > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> ,
> >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Joe Decker
> >> > www.joedecker.net
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
I don't know that there is a next step. The WMF has clearly indicated they
will not budge on the solution that the high-level Wikipedia community says
is needed. I have qualms myself about the way the community operates at
times but covering ACTRAIL and New Page Patrol at the Signpost felt like an
enormous and egregious slap across the face. I still see and feel the
repercussions of these breaches of trust today.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
>
> Pine
> On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall --
> was
> > the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
> > Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
> > response to ACTRIAL?
> >
> > If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes panned
> > out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and
> > built a set of tools to directly address that problem without
> compromising
> > the core value of openness"?
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients
> > > and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's
> > solved,
> > > since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate
> (AFC).
> > > Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new
> users?
> > >
> > > Pete
> > > On Sep 1, 2014 4:38 PM, "Risker" <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response
> > to
> > >> concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed
> articles
> > >> showing up in mainspace?
> > >>
> > >> Risker/Anne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker <joedecker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the
> > WMF's
> > >> > response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional
> feedback
> > >> > given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am
> aware
> > >> of.
> > >> >
> > >> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
> > >> >
> > >> > --Joe
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints,
> > >> > because
> > >> > > the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive
> effort
> > >> to
> > >> > > produce.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and
> > >> spam
> > >> > > from people who never have the slightest intent of editing
> > helpfully,
> > >> and
> > >> > > those who are newbies who genuinely want to help but need guidance
> > get
> > >> > > caught in the crossfire aimed at the vandals and spammers. It is
> > >> > relatively
> > >> > > rare that when a genuinely new editor's first edit is a creation,
> it
> > >> is
> > >> > the
> > >> > > creation of an appropriate article on a workable subject, and
> that's
> > >> > > normally more by dumb luck than them having actual knowledge that
> > they
> > >> > > should do it.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So, consider that a complaint. The proposed fix didn't work, and
> > most
> > >> > > people at the time didn't figure it would work, but it was clearly
> > the
> > >> > best
> > >> > > we were going to get.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
> > >> > > pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as
> mentioned
> > >> > above.
> > >> > > > The
> > >> > > > > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change,
> > and
> > >> the
> > >> > > WMF
> > >> > > > > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not."
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I
> > >> remember
> > >> > > was
> > >> > > > that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members
> came
> > >> > > together
> > >> > > > and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to fix it and
> asked
> > >> the
> > >> > > WMF
> > >> > > > to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a
> basic
> > >> > > project
> > >> > > > value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying
> > to
> > >> > > > solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly
> address
> > >> that
> > >> > > > problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it
> > >> seems
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of
> > >> complaints
> > >> > > > about that problem since.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ______________________
> > >> > > > Philippe Beaudette
> > >> > > > Director, Community Advocacy
> > >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >> ,
> > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Joe Decker
> > >> > www.joedecker.net
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
>
> Pine
>

He pops in every once in a while during his break but while he is away
Maggie and I are splitting his work up (and this is, for better or worse,
well before Rachel's time).



> On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall --
> was
> > the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
> > Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in
> > response to ACTRIAL?
> >
> > If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes panned
> > out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and
> > built a set of tools to directly address that problem without
> compromising
> > the core value of openness"?
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
>

I do not believe he was talking about the Draft feature, which came later.
I think he was referring to the Page Curation
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Curation> tool which I know for a fact
was created in direct response to ACTRIAL because one of the big complaints
was the difficulty with patrolling new pages. While I wasn't directly
involved it was one of the first software products I remember (either as a
community member or staff member) the Foundation trying to engage closely
with the community throughout it's development to create something that
would work well. I also think it was the first product with a Community
Liaison (who, incidentally, had been the most active page patroller for
multiple years before as a community member).
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
Sure, and from what I hear it helped, but it was no panacea, especially
since it's a solution that still relies on a still-declining editor base.
Not like turning the valves would be, and that's clearly not going to
happen. Hence why I doubt there's much more room for improvement on this
issue. New tech can only do so much to fix the problem.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:01 PM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
> >
> > Pine
> >
>
> He pops in every once in a while during his break but while he is away
> Maggie and I are splitting his work up (and this is, for better or worse,
> well before Rachel's time).
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall --
> > was
> > > the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the
> > > Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did
> in
> > > response to ACTRIAL?
> > >
> > > If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes
> panned
> > > out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed and
> > > built a set of tools to directly address that problem without
> > compromising
> > > the core value of openness"?
> > >
> > > Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> >
>
> I do not believe he was talking about the Draft feature, which came later.
> I think he was referring to the Page Curation
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Curation> tool which I know for a
> fact
> was created in direct response to ACTRIAL because one of the big complaints
> was the difficulty with patrolling new pages. While I wasn't directly
> involved it was one of the first software products I remember (either as a
> community member or staff member) the Foundation trying to engage closely
> with the community throughout it's development to create something that
> would work well. I also think it was the first product with a Community
> Liaison (who, incidentally, had been the most active page patroller for
> multiple years before as a community member).
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
I agree with the statement "New tech can only do so much to fix the
problem." Our retention rate for new editors was <1% the last time I
checked. What we should do about that should probably be the subject of a
different thread. We've had multiple discussions about vital statistics for
the editor population on this mailing list, the Research mailing list, and
the Gendergap mailing list, in addition to countless on-wiki discussions. I
also hope that there will be discussions about this issue at the Wikimedia
Conference. I personally wrote "Saving Wikipedia" as one of my interests in
attending the conference, and that's not an exaggeration. We need to get
out of long-term-decline mode.

Pine

Pine

*This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>






*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
know.*

*—Catherine Munro*

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Aleksey Bilogur <aleksey.bilogur@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sure, and from what I hear it helped, but it was no panacea, especially
> since it's a solution that still relies on a still-declining editor base.
> Not like turning the valves would be, and that's clearly not going to
> happen. Hence why I doubt there's much more room for improvement on this
> issue. New tech can only do so much to fix the problem.
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:01 PM, James Alexander <
> jalexander@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > James Alexander
> > Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pete,
> > >
> > > Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> >
> > He pops in every once in a while during his break but while he is away
> > Maggie and I are splitting his work up (and this is, for better or worse,
> > well before Rachel's time).
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, "Pete Forsyth" <peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall
> --
> > > was
> > > > the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward
> the
> > > > Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did
> > in
> > > > response to ACTRIAL?
> > > >
> > > > If so -- has there been any study of whether its intended outcomes
> > panned
> > > > out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by "[WMF] proposed
> and
> > > > built a set of tools to directly address that problem without
> > > compromising
> > > > the core value of openness"?
> > > >
> > > > Pete
> > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > I do not believe he was talking about the Draft feature, which came
> later.
> > I think he was referring to the Page Curation
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Curation> tool which I know for a
> > fact
> > was created in direct response to ACTRIAL because one of the big
> complaints
> > was the difficulty with patrolling new pages. While I wasn't directly
> > involved it was one of the first software products I remember (either as
> a
> > community member or staff member) the Foundation trying to engage closely
> > with the community throughout it's development to create something that
> > would work well. I also think it was the first product with a Community
> > Liaison (who, incidentally, had been the most active page patroller for
> > multiple years before as a community member).
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
>

Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
development in this area. There have been several closely related things --
Article Creation Wizard, Draft: namespace, New Page Patrol software... --
and I see many references to an overall plan, but I've had difficulty
finding a summary of that plan.

In the meantime, I've been trying to put the pieces together myself, and
have gotten some good assistance from Nemo Bis and Aaron Halfaker -- see
here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_article_creation#Cutoff_date_for_comparison.3F

At this point, in addition to clarification from Philippe about which part
he was referring to, the main thing I'm hoping to accomplish is basically a
timeline of milestones, more or less like this (I have somewhat made up the
data below for the sake of illustrating the format):

* January 1, 2004: AFC process created. [[Wikilink to tool]] [diff or
mailing list for decision-making process]
* February 1, 2011: RfC on English Wikipedia calls for new procedure
[[wikilink to RfC]] [Bugzilla link for request]
* June 1, 2011: Articles for Creation wizard launched [[Wikilink]]
[discussion link] with these impacts on user experience:
** Impact 1
** Impact 2
** Impact 3...
...and so on.

Who at WMF would be best able to fill in the gaps in such a list? Or does
the list already exist in a strategy document somewhere? I haven't been
able to find it yet, but I'm still looking.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
Hi Pete,

James A. might be able to answer that, or know which project manager to
ping.

AFC and related processes are within my scope of concern regarding editor
retention, but they're not my expertise. I wish I could help more.
Currently, when I'm not dealing with Cascadia Wikimedians budgets and
events, my other item of great interest is VisualEditor, which I feel has
come a long way. In Cascadia we intend to start to introduce new users to
VisualEditor, using some presentation materials that I'm putting together,
hopefully for eventual integration into a couple of videos.

Regarding broader editor engagement plans going forward, I would like to
see those fleshed out by WMF, and I have that on my list of items to ask
Rachel and/or Lila about if no one else does in the next few weeks.

Pine


Pine

*This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>






*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
know.*

*—Catherine Munro*

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
> >
>
> Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
> Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
> development in this area. There have been several closely related things --
> Article Creation Wizard, Draft: namespace, New Page Patrol software... --
> and I see many references to an overall plan, but I've had difficulty
> finding a summary of that plan.
>
> In the meantime, I've been trying to put the pieces together myself, and
> have gotten some good assistance from Nemo Bis and Aaron Halfaker -- see
> here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_article_creation#Cutoff_date_for_comparison.3F
>
> At this point, in addition to clarification from Philippe about which part
> he was referring to, the main thing I'm hoping to accomplish is basically a
> timeline of milestones, more or less like this (I have somewhat made up the
> data below for the sake of illustrating the format):
>
> * January 1, 2004: AFC process created. [[Wikilink to tool]] [diff or
> mailing list for decision-making process]
> * February 1, 2011: RfC on English Wikipedia calls for new procedure
> [[wikilink to RfC]] [Bugzilla link for request]
> * June 1, 2011: Articles for Creation wizard launched [[Wikilink]]
> [discussion link] with these impacts on user experience:
> ** Impact 1
> ** Impact 2
> ** Impact 3...
> ...and so on.
>
> Who at WMF would be best able to fill in the gaps in such a list? Or does
> the list already exist in a strategy document somewhere? I haven't been
> able to find it yet, but I'm still looking.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.

As I have spent most of my time for the last year and a half dealing with
the gross deficiencies in AfC, I continue to feel that the best thing to do
with it is to discontinue it altogether: it's an excellent example of
technical solutions made without considering the inadequate number of
skilled people to operate it, and the attraction it would have for the
incompetent. (It also showed the lack of willingness of those devising
it to make even the most obvious of changes (there is *still* no easy way
to list multiple reasons for rejection without a manual over-ride) I cannot
judge competence at the technical level except by the results.

Draft space was initiated by those like myself trying to find a replacement
for it. We hoped it would replace, not just add on as it has done.

What I primarily want from the tech staff at WMF is to improve performance
by fixing obsolete internal elements of the system. They finally seem to be
doing that. What is equally needed but of less relevance to my own work is
to do whatever depth of reprogramming is needed to accommodate mobile
devices. They're doing that--how well I leave it to others to say.



On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> James A. might be able to answer that, or know which project manager to
> ping.
>
> AFC and related processes are within my scope of concern regarding editor
> retention, but they're not my expertise. I wish I could help more.
> Currently, when I'm not dealing with Cascadia Wikimedians budgets and
> events, my other item of great interest is VisualEditor, which I feel has
> come a long way. In Cascadia we intend to start to introduce new users to
> VisualEditor, using some presentation materials that I'm putting together,
> hopefully for eventual integration into a couple of videos.
>
> Regarding broader editor engagement plans going forward, I would like to
> see those fleshed out by WMF, and I have that on my list of items to ask
> Rachel and/or Lila about if no one else does in the next few weeks.
>
> Pine
>
>
> Pine
>
> *This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
> our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
> must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
> which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
> fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
> know.*
>
> *—Catherine Munro*
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
> > Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
> > development in this area. There have been several closely related things
> --
> > Article Creation Wizard, Draft: namespace, New Page Patrol software... --
> > and I see many references to an overall plan, but I've had difficulty
> > finding a summary of that plan.
> >
> > In the meantime, I've been trying to put the pieces together myself, and
> > have gotten some good assistance from Nemo Bis and Aaron Halfaker -- see
> > here:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_article_creation#Cutoff_date_for_comparison.3F
> >
> > At this point, in addition to clarification from Philippe about which
> part
> > he was referring to, the main thing I'm hoping to accomplish is
> basically a
> > timeline of milestones, more or less like this (I have somewhat made up
> the
> > data below for the sake of illustrating the format):
> >
> > * January 1, 2004: AFC process created. [[Wikilink to tool]] [diff or
> > mailing list for decision-making process]
> > * February 1, 2011: RfC on English Wikipedia calls for new procedure
> > [[wikilink to RfC]] [Bugzilla link for request]
> > * June 1, 2011: Articles for Creation wizard launched [[Wikilink]]
> > [discussion link] with these impacts on user experience:
> > ** Impact 1
> > ** Impact 2
> > ** Impact 3...
> > ...and so on.
> >
> > Who at WMF would be best able to fill in the gaps in such a list? Or does
> > the list already exist in a strategy document somewhere? I haven't been
> > able to find it yet, but I'm still looking.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
On 25 April 2015 at 04:11, David Goodman <dggenwp@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going
> to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
> beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.


When did you last use it? I ask because I just started using it again
after a long while not, and it's *ridiculously* better now than it was
in its first six months. It's now at the sort of quality where I'd be
enormously happy to put it in front of people, as it wasn't two years
ago.

Also, it is the only sane way to edit tables. (The amazing thing about
wikitext for tables is that it's actually worse than the plain HTML it
replaced.) I expect your newbies will be less than pleased if they
ever have to add or remove a table column and only later discover that
the VE makes this a near-trivial task.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
I put "model writing a new article with visual editor" on my to-do list. It
may be a good idea to do a few test runs where we boot a hundred or so
pages in each category in VisualEditor, and then see how many of each have
errors.
On Apr 25, 2015 1:51 PM, "David Gerard" <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 April 2015 at 04:11, David Goodman <dggenwp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not
> going
> > to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching
> > beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see.
>
>
> When did you last use it? I ask because I just started using it again
> after a long while not, and it's *ridiculously* better now than it was
> in its first six months. It's now at the sort of quality where I'd be
> enormously happy to put it in front of people, as it wasn't two years
> ago.
>
> Also, it is the only sane way to edit tables. (The amazing thing about
> wikitext for tables is that it's actually worse than the plain HTML it
> replaced.) I expect your newbies will be less than pleased if they
> ever have to add or remove a table column and only later discover that
> the VE makes this a near-trivial task.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments [ In reply to ]
James,

Pine suggested you might be able to fill in some of the gaps here. I am not
tied to any given format, but what I'm looking for is the connective tissue
between things like ACTRIAL, AFC and its increased use, Page Curation, the
Draft: namespace, etc.

Reading through the associated pages on wiki, it appears (most specifically
from a couple comments from Steven Walling) that there was a strategic
framework at the WMF that tied this stuff together. But after spending 45
minutes or so browsing wiki discussions and feature pages, I didn't feel I
was getting any closer to seeing what it was/is.

Can you help?
Pete

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel.
>>
>
> Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe
> Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software
> development in this area. There have been several closely related things --
> Article Creation Wizard, Draft: namespace, New Page Patrol software... --
> and I see many references to an overall plan, but I've had difficulty
> finding a summary of that plan.
>
> In the meantime, I've been trying to put the pieces together myself, and
> have gotten some good assistance from Nemo Bis and Aaron Halfaker -- see
> here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_article_creation#Cutoff_date_for_comparison.3F
>
> At this point, in addition to clarification from Philippe about which part
> he was referring to, the main thing I'm hoping to accomplish is basically a
> timeline of milestones, more or less like this (I have somewhat made up the
> data below for the sake of illustrating the format):
>
> * January 1, 2004: AFC process created. [[Wikilink to tool]] [diff or
> mailing list for decision-making process]
> * February 1, 2011: RfC on English Wikipedia calls for new procedure
> [[wikilink to RfC]] [Bugzilla link for request]
> * June 1, 2011: Articles for Creation wizard launched [[Wikilink]]
> [discussion link] with these impacts on user experience:
> ** Impact 1
> ** Impact 2
> ** Impact 3...
> ...and so on.
>
> Who at WMF would be best able to fill in the gaps in such a list? Or does
> the list already exist in a strategy document somewhere? I haven't been
> able to find it yet, but I'm still looking.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3 4 5 6  View All