Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization
Forwarding this to wikimedia-l as it doesn't seem to be very technical in
nature, but definitely seems worthy of discussion.

MZMcBride


Danny Horn wrote:
>For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the
>structured discussion system. I want to let you know about some changes in
>that long-term plan.
>
>While initial announcements about Flow said that it would be a universal
>replacement for talk pages, the features that were ultimately built into
>Flow were specifically forum-style group discussion tools. But article and
>project talk pages are used for a number of important and complex
>processes that those tools aren't able to handle, making Flow unsuitable
>for deployment on those kinds of pages.
>
>To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing
>our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take
>place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex
>workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of
>instructions -- that turn blank wikitext talk pages into structured
>workflows. There are gadgets and user scripts on the larger wikis to help
>with some of these workflows, but these tools aren't standardized or
>universally available.
>
>As these workflows grow in complexity, they become more difficult for the
>next generation of editors to learn and use. This has increased the
>workload on the people who maintain those systems today. Complex workflows
>are also difficult to adapt to other languages, because a wiki with
>thousands of articles may not need the kind of complexity that comes with
>managing a wiki with millions of articles. We've talked about this kind of
>structured workflow support at Wikimania, in user research sessions, and
>on wikis. It's an important area that needs a lot of discussion,
>exploration, and work.
>
>Starting in October, Flow will not be in active development, as we shift
>the team's focus to these other priorities. We'll be helping core
>contributors reduce the stress of an ever-growing workload, and helping
>the next generation of contributors participate in those processes.
>Further development on these projects will be driven by the needs
>expressed by wiki communities.
>
>Flow will be maintained and supported, and communities that are excited
>about Flow discussions will be able to use it. There are places where the
>discussion features are working well, with communities that are
>enthusiastic about them: on user talk pages, help pages, and forum/village
>pump-style discussion spaces. By the end of September, we'll have an
>opt-in Beta feature available to communities that want it, allowing users
>to enable Flow on their own user talk pages.
>
>I'm sure people will want to know more about these projects, and we're
>looking forward to those conversations. We'll be reaching out for lots of
>input and feedback over the coming months.
>
>Danny Horn
>Collaboration team, PM



_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Danny Horn wrote:
>To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing
>our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that
>take place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex
>workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of
>instructions -- that turn blank wikitext talk pages into structured
>workflows. There are gadgets and user scripts on the larger wikis to help
>with some of these workflows, but these tools aren't standardized or
>universally available.

I absolutely agree that existing wiki workflows need love. I think anyone
who has looked at various wiki request for deletion processes, for
example, easily sees and understands the need for a better system.

What I'm struggling with here is that Flow seems to have failed to
deliver. It hasn't met its goals of covering even basic talk pages and it
sounds as though further development work on Flow will now be suspended.

From my perspective, after over two years of development, we've basically
accomplished creating pages such as "Topic:P0q3m7vwysdezd2m" (I wish I
were kidding, that's an actual page title) on development wikis such as
mediawiki.org. This is a pretty bleak outcome, in my opinion.

Given the failure in addressing basic talk pages, why would anyone trust
the Collaboration team to work on and improve more complex workflows? I
don't see a track record of success or, alternately, a good explanation
for why the previous work has failed and what will be better next time.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Will the Visual Editor be enabled on Talk Pages then for use of the Visual Editor user? Flow had been heralded as the solution for those not able to contribute in wikitext but if that option is off the table, what is the solution for the VE-only user?

Kerry


-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of MZMcBride
Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 10:15 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

Danny Horn wrote:
>To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now
>focusing our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin
>processes that take place on a variety of pages. Many of these
>processes use complex workarounds -- templates, categories,
>transclusions, and lots of instructions -- that turn blank wikitext
>talk pages into structured workflows. There are gadgets and user
>scripts on the larger wikis to help with some of these workflows, but
>these tools aren't standardized or universally available.

I absolutely agree that existing wiki workflows need love. I think anyone who has looked at various wiki request for deletion processes, for example, easily sees and understands the need for a better system.

What I'm struggling with here is that Flow seems to have failed to deliver. It hasn't met its goals of covering even basic talk pages and it sounds as though further development work on Flow will now be suspended.

From my perspective, after over two years of development, we've basically accomplished creating pages such as "Topic:P0q3m7vwysdezd2m" (I wish I were kidding, that's an actual page title) on development wikis such as mediawiki.org. This is a pretty bleak outcome, in my opinion.

Given the failure in addressing basic talk pages, why would anyone trust the Collaboration team to work on and improve more complex workflows? I don't see a track record of success or, alternately, a good explanation for why the previous work has failed and what will be better next time.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
I don't know how Wikimedia engineering tracks project resource usage - is
there a number out there for the total cost to the WMF associated with the
Flow project? At a basic minimum, the number of developer and other hours
dedicated to Flow (including fully dedicated contractors)? Is it likely
that this is the most expensive unsuccessful engineering effort since the
WMF was founded?
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Finance perspective here. My understanding is that Lila slowed the
development of Flow awhile back. If Flow was turning out to be a resource
intensive project with marginal benefits, then ending its development is
likely to be a good management decision. A retrospective on Flow's
development and end might be an interesting read, but we can be thankful
that its ending was a staged shutdown rather than another VE-style
explosion.

Pine
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
I think it takes a lot of guts to come to the conclusion, and publicly
admit, that the attention of the team needs to better reflect the
community's needs. From personal experience I know it wasn't easy.

This does leave me a little concerned. As a third-party MediaWiki user, a
friendly talk page interface was something I was looking forward too. The
people I support are non-technical and work like VisualEditor have greatly
impacted the contributions from folks. Flow appeared/appears to follow in
the same vein.

How does this impact having a stable release of the Flow extension for
third-party users? It's still very much a beta release (multiple extensions
pseudo-required as an example) and is labeled as such on Mediawiki.org.

This leaves us with unclear options when it comes to enabling a better
Talk: interface from the default wikitext-heavy experience of MediaWiki.

Will Flow reach a 'stable' state for third-party users? One that you would
recommend for use?

Yours,
Chris Koerner
clkoerner.com

P.S. Might I suggest posting this message on the Extension:Flow talk page
as well? Third-party MediaWiki users should know what they're getting into
if they decide to adopt Flow.
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Hi, (here goes a disclaimer about me posting this email as volunteer tech
ambassador in Catalan Wikipedia in my personal time)

While Flow might not be ready to make happy core enwiki contributors, in my
humble (and again, personal) opinion it is clearly ready to make life
easier to dozens (hundreds?) of Wikimedia projects (the smaller, probably
the merrier). The Catalan Wikipedia project has gone through several
iterations of Flow adoption, they basically want more, and they basically
will get more. Their goal is simple: Flow everywhere.

This is not an exaggeration. The communities that work actively and
directly on bringing new editors (with workshops, editathons, collaboration
with schools and other face to face interactions) know that VisualEditor is
a key tool. Once new editors have been trained with VisualEditor, there is
no way they will enjoy or even understand why they should learn
wikitext-based conventions to discuss and collaborate. Flow is the natural
VisualEditor companion, and new users don't even "love it", because for
them is just natural.

I'm happy to see that the possibility for users to opt-in to convert their
user talk pages to Flow is close to deployment. It is an interesting way to
let users show their interest and preference. I hope projects willing to
enable Flow in more places will get the tools or processes to do so. I
understand the demands of big projects with complex processes in their
discussion pages. I just hope those requirements don't become an obstacle
for the many more smaller projects that can benefit today from Flow. Time
will tell.

About Flow for third party MediaWikis (let me change my hat again, now as
admin of a small wiki in a 3rd party wiki farm), at least
https://miraheze.org/ is offering Flow to wikis requesting it. It works,
with script to archive wikitext discussion pages an all. If they have done
it, I guess other third parties can do it.

Anyway, did I say Thank You Flow Team? :) You rock, and you will continue
to rock.

--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
T​o clarify: Starting in October, Flow will be maintained; it's not being
abandoned. Further work on the discussion system will need to be driven by
communities voicing their desire for further work on it. Additional
development on the discussion system will be prioritized on community
request and on a project by project basis.

As a pattern that we're all familiar with, it's more likely that people
will comment when they have negative or critical feedback, particularly at
a centralized forum. While it's helpful to point out things that are not
user-friendly or are frustrating to use, it's also helpful for the team to
know what is going well - so we can do more of it. I’d like to encourage
people to speak up (here or onwiki) when there's positive feedback as well
– this goes for article-editors as much as software-developers. There are
people on many wikis who have been happily using Flow, but they haven't
gone out of their way to broadcast that information off of their usual home
wiki. What do you like about this software? Is it headed in the right
direction, even if it doesn’t seem complete? Are there things about it that
the Collaboration team could continue to focus on?

See also, the thread on wikitech-l, for additional discussion.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/83889

Hope that helps
--
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Community Liaison
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Quick followup, with a reminder that onwiki feedback would be ideal. The
original message is replicated at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:So4pui07y03ibgqq and your input there
will be greatly appreciated.
​Thanks.
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
2015-09-02 3:15 GMT+03:00 MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com>:
> What I'm struggling with here is that Flow seems to have failed to
> deliver. It hasn't met its goals of covering even basic talk pages and it
> sounds as though further development work on Flow will now be suspended.
>
> From my perspective, after over two years of development, we've basically
> accomplished creating pages such as "Topic:P0q3m7vwysdezd2m" (I wish I
> were kidding, that's an actual page title) on development wikis such as
> mediawiki.org. This is a pretty bleak outcome, in my opinion.

This is an exaggeration.

The "Topic:P0q3m7vwysdezd2m" URL is not pretty, but this is remarkably
unimportant: I've been using several personal and project-level Flow pages
productively in three languages every day for the last few months. I never
had any reason to think that these GUID URLs are a problem. Contrariwise,
it's far more convenient to post them instead of an unstable URL with an
anchor.

Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can
write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for
many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk pages".

Even more importantly is that you can write a title and an OP and get
people to reply ON THEIR PHONES. This is nearly impossible on the classic
talk pages; on them you are lucky to even manage to read the existing
discussions, and typing a reply requires extra finger-acrobatics. With Flow
it's as easy as on Twitter. I do almost no coding for Mobile Frontend and
apps, but I'm a kind of a volunteer mobile technologies ambassador in my
home wiki, and good mobile support for talk pages is the #1 request that I
hear from veteran editors with regards to using Wikipedia on their phones.
This is another thing that Flow has been doing for many months already.

As for new users, well, if I had a sheqel for every time that I had to
explain about ::: and --~~~~ to new Wikipeia editors, I could buy a very
good dinner to all the participants of this thread. With Flow I just don't
need to do it - they click Reply and just reply.

I received a lot of positive feedback about Flow from my home wiki editors,
both veteran and newbies.

There are nearly 900 Phab tasks for Flow, but the *only* thing that I
really miss is a basic easy way to go back to old posts - be it
auto-archiving with a calendar, search, filtering, or anything other way to
access them, and even that has not been a blocker for productive daily use
of several Flow boards. (Just as a reminder, going to old posts in classic
talk pages is different on every page, according to their authors archiving
style, so it's not much of a regression.)

I wish that more discussion pages on which I wrote would use Flow, and I
very much hope that Flow's talk page component would be more than just
"maintained and supported".

Thanks, collaboration team; I expect to see more of your skills and
innovations soon.

--
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Thanks for that perspective Amir. I hadn't even thought of the mobile
aspect. It would be great to have improved collaboration tools for working
on mobile.

Pine


On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> 2015-09-02 3:15 GMT+03:00 MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com>:
> > What I'm struggling with here is that Flow seems to have failed to
> > deliver. It hasn't met its goals of covering even basic talk pages and it
> > sounds as though further development work on Flow will now be suspended.
> >
> > From my perspective, after over two years of development, we've basically
> > accomplished creating pages such as "Topic:P0q3m7vwysdezd2m" (I wish I
> > were kidding, that's an actual page title) on development wikis such as
> > mediawiki.org. This is a pretty bleak outcome, in my opinion.
>
> This is an exaggeration.
>
> The "Topic:P0q3m7vwysdezd2m" URL is not pretty, but this is remarkably
> unimportant: I've been using several personal and project-level Flow pages
> productively in three languages every day for the last few months. I never
> had any reason to think that these GUID URLs are a problem. Contrariwise,
> it's far more convenient to post them instead of an unstable URL with an
> anchor.
>
> Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can
> write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for
> many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk pages".
>
> Even more importantly is that you can write a title and an OP and get
> people to reply ON THEIR PHONES. This is nearly impossible on the classic
> talk pages; on them you are lucky to even manage to read the existing
> discussions, and typing a reply requires extra finger-acrobatics. With Flow
> it's as easy as on Twitter. I do almost no coding for Mobile Frontend and
> apps, but I'm a kind of a volunteer mobile technologies ambassador in my
> home wiki, and good mobile support for talk pages is the #1 request that I
> hear from veteran editors with regards to using Wikipedia on their phones.
> This is another thing that Flow has been doing for many months already.
>
> As for new users, well, if I had a sheqel for every time that I had to
> explain about ::: and --~~~~ to new Wikipeia editors, I could buy a very
> good dinner to all the participants of this thread. With Flow I just don't
> need to do it - they click Reply and just reply.
>
> I received a lot of positive feedback about Flow from my home wiki editors,
> both veteran and newbies.
>
> There are nearly 900 Phab tasks for Flow, but the *only* thing that I
> really miss is a basic easy way to go back to old posts - be it
> auto-archiving with a calendar, search, filtering, or anything other way to
> access them, and even that has not been a blocker for productive daily use
> of several Flow boards. (Just as a reminder, going to old posts in classic
> talk pages is different on every page, according to their authors archiving
> style, so it's not much of a regression.)
>
> I wish that more discussion pages on which I wrote would use Flow, and I
> very much hope that Flow's talk page component would be more than just
> "maintained and supported".
>
> Thanks, collaboration team; I expect to see more of your skills and
> innovations soon.
>
> --
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can
>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for
>many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk pages".
>
>Even more importantly is that you can write a title and an OP and get
>people to reply ON THEIR PHONES. This is nearly impossible on the classic
>talk pages; on them you are lucky to even manage to read the existing
>discussions, and typing a reply requires extra finger-acrobatics. With
>Flow it's as easy as on Twitter. I do almost no coding for Mobile
>Frontend and apps, but I'm a kind of a volunteer mobile technologies
>ambassador in my home wiki, and good mobile support for talk pages is the
>#1 request that I hear from veteran editors with regards to using
>Wikipedia on their phones. This is another thing that Flow has been doing
>for many months already.

I think most of the points you raise here are true of LiquidThreads or
_any_ prototype of a discussion system. Yes, you get a reply button
instead of needing ":: ~~~~" wikitext. That's great, I agree, but after
having watched LiquidThreads rot and then seeing a lot of time, money, and
effort put into Flow, I'm pretty dissatisfied with the deliverable being
essentially a very intricate proof-of-concept. I think not getting Flow
fully deployed to Wikimedia wikis is objectively a large failure to
deliver. Consequently, it seems most prudent to be asking what went wrong
and how it will be better next time. The underlying reality is that we
still need a better on-wiki discussion system and it now looks like
neither LiquidThreads nor Flow are going to be it.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>>Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can
>>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for
>>many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk pages".
>>
>>Even more importantly is that you can write a title and an OP and get
>>people to reply ON THEIR PHONES. This is nearly impossible on the classic
>>talk pages; on them you are lucky to even manage to read the existing
>>discussions, and typing a reply requires extra finger-acrobatics. With
>>Flow it's as easy as on Twitter. I do almost no coding for Mobile
>>Frontend and apps, but I'm a kind of a volunteer mobile technologies
>>ambassador in my home wiki, and good mobile support for talk pages is the
>>#1 request that I hear from veteran editors with regards to using
>>Wikipedia on their phones. This is another thing that Flow has been doing
>>for many months already.
>
> I think most of the points you raise here are true of LiquidThreads or
> _any_ prototype of a discussion system. Yes, you get a reply button
> instead of needing ":: ~~~~" wikitext. That's great, I agree, but after
> having watched LiquidThreads rot and then seeing a lot of time, money, and
> effort put into Flow, I'm pretty dissatisfied with the deliverable being
> essentially a very intricate proof-of-concept. I think not getting Flow
> fully deployed to Wikimedia wikis is objectively a large failure to
> deliver. Consequently, it seems most prudent to be asking what went wrong
> and how it will be better next time. The underlying reality is that we
> still need a better on-wiki discussion system and it now looks like
> neither LiquidThreads nor Flow are going to be it.

In addition to this, we still have LiquidThreads (LQT) in production.

I can understand Flow being put into maintenance mode, especially if
temporarily while energy is focused elsewhere, but I believe the main
Flow project should at least include:

1. dumping Flow content into the public dumps (
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89398 ), and

2. decommissioning LiquidThreads on all Wikimedia sites by converting
them to Flow

According to Wikiapiary [1] , there are still seven 'active' WMF sites
using LiquidThreads.

I see LQT is still actively being used on five of them:

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&from=&namespace=90

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&from=&namespace=90

https://pt.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Mudan%C3%A7as_recentes&days=30&from=&namespace=90

https://fi.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toiminnot:Tuoreet_muutokset&days=30&from=&namespace=90
(conversion to Flow requested: T104089)

https://se.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Senaste_%C3%A4ndringar&days=30&from=&namespace=90
(conversion to Flow requested: T106302)

But no Thread: activity on two others:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/
(They are trialling Flow? T107301)
http://sv.wikisource.org/

It is also installed on two locked projects: Wikimania 2010, and
Wikimedia Strategic Planning. Can't they be converted to Flow ?

And it is still installed on https://www.mediawiki.org/ . Is that
still necessary?

Is the current plan simply "let users request LiquidThreads pages be
converted to Flow"?

Which of the above sites are only using it in user talk?

Have any of the above sites affirmatively decided they do not want to
switch to Flow (yet)?
If so, what are their reasons?

1. https://wikiapiary.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Ask&offset=0&limit=20&q=[[Has+extension%3A%3AExtension%3ALiquid+Threads]]&p=format%3Dtable%2Flink%3Dall%2Fheaders%3Dshow%2Fmainlabel%3D-2D%2Fintro%3D-3Cb-3EThis-20extension-20is-20in-20use-20on-20the-20following-20websites%3A-3C-2Fb-3E-3Cbr-20-2F-3E%2Fsearchlabel%3D%E2%80%A6-20further-20results%2Fdefault%3DThis-20extension-20is-20no-20longer-20in-20use-20on-20any-20website.%2Fclass%3Dsortable-20wikitable-20smwtable&po=%3FHas+website%3DWiki+name%0A%3FHas+MediaWiki+version%3DMediaWiki+version%0A%3FHas+extension+version%3DExtension+version%0A&sort=Has+MediaWiki+version&order=descending%2Crand&eq=no

--
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
We are planning to put Flow into public dumps this month, and work with all
the remaining communities still using LQT about converting to Flow. I
wanted to let this announcement settle for a minute before we talk to them.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:23 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> >>Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You
> can
> >>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working
> for
> >>many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk
> pages".
> >>
> >>Even more importantly is that you can write a title and an OP and get
> >>people to reply ON THEIR PHONES. This is nearly impossible on the classic
> >>talk pages; on them you are lucky to even manage to read the existing
> >>discussions, and typing a reply requires extra finger-acrobatics. With
> >>Flow it's as easy as on Twitter. I do almost no coding for Mobile
> >>Frontend and apps, but I'm a kind of a volunteer mobile technologies
> >>ambassador in my home wiki, and good mobile support for talk pages is the
> >>#1 request that I hear from veteran editors with regards to using
> >>Wikipedia on their phones. This is another thing that Flow has been doing
> >>for many months already.
> >
> > I think most of the points you raise here are true of LiquidThreads or
> > _any_ prototype of a discussion system. Yes, you get a reply button
> > instead of needing ":: ~~~~" wikitext. That's great, I agree, but after
> > having watched LiquidThreads rot and then seeing a lot of time, money,
> and
> > effort put into Flow, I'm pretty dissatisfied with the deliverable being
> > essentially a very intricate proof-of-concept. I think not getting Flow
> > fully deployed to Wikimedia wikis is objectively a large failure to
> > deliver. Consequently, it seems most prudent to be asking what went wrong
> > and how it will be better next time. The underlying reality is that we
> > still need a better on-wiki discussion system and it now looks like
> > neither LiquidThreads nor Flow are going to be it.
>
> In addition to this, we still have LiquidThreads (LQT) in production.
>
> I can understand Flow being put into maintenance mode, especially if
> temporarily while energy is focused elsewhere, but I believe the main
> Flow project should at least include:
>
> 1. dumping Flow content into the public dumps (
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89398 ), and
>
> 2. decommissioning LiquidThreads on all Wikimedia sites by converting
> them to Flow
>
> According to Wikiapiary [1] , there are still seven 'active' WMF sites
> using LiquidThreads.
>
> I see LQT is still actively being used on five of them:
>
>
> https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&from=&namespace=90
>
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&from=&namespace=90
>
>
> https://pt.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Mudan%C3%A7as_recentes&days=30&from=&namespace=90
>
>
> https://fi.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toiminnot:Tuoreet_muutokset&days=30&from=&namespace=90
> (conversion to Flow requested: T104089)
>
>
> https://se.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Senaste_%C3%A4ndringar&days=30&from=&namespace=90
> (conversion to Flow requested: T106302)
>
> But no Thread: activity on two others:
> http://hu.wikipedia.org/
> (They are trialling Flow? T107301)
> http://sv.wikisource.org/
>
> It is also installed on two locked projects: Wikimania 2010, and
> Wikimedia Strategic Planning. Can't they be converted to Flow ?
>
> And it is still installed on https://www.mediawiki.org/ . Is that
> still necessary?
>
> Is the current plan simply "let users request LiquidThreads pages be
> converted to Flow"?
>
> Which of the above sites are only using it in user talk?
>
> Have any of the above sites affirmatively decided they do not want to
> switch to Flow (yet)?
> If so, what are their reasons?
>
> 1.
> https://wikiapiary.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Ask&offset=0&limit=20&q=[[Has+extension%3A%3AExtension%3ALiquid+Threads]]&p=format%3Dtable%2Flink%3Dall%2Fheaders%3Dshow%2Fmainlabel%3D-2D%2Fintro%3D-3Cb-3EThis-20extension-20is-20in-20use-20on-20the-20following-20websites%3A-3C-2Fb-3E-3Cbr-20-2F-3E%2Fsearchlabel%3D%E2%80%A6-20further-20results%2Fdefault%3DThis-20extension-20is-20no-20longer-20in-20use-20on-20any-20website.%2Fclass%3Dsortable-20wikitable-20smwtable&po=%3FHas+website%3DWiki+name%0A%3FHas+MediaWiki+version%3DMediaWiki+version%0A%3FHas+extension+version%3DExtension+version%0A&sort=Has+MediaWiki+version&order=descending%2Crand&eq=no
>
> --
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
MZMcBride <z <at> mzmcbride.com> writes:

>
> Forwarding this to wikimedia-l as it doesn't seem to be very technical in
> nature, but definitely seems worthy of discussion.
>
> MZMcBride
>
> Danny Horn wrote:
> >For a while now, the Collaboration team has been working on Flow, the
> >structured discussion system. I want to let you know about some changes in
> >that long-term plan.
> >
> >While initial announcements about Flow said that it would be a universal
> >replacement for talk pages, the features that were ultimately built into
> >Flow were specifically forum-style group discussion tools. But article and
> >project talk pages are used for a number of important and complex
> >processes that those tools aren't able to handle, making Flow unsuitable
> >for deployment on those kinds of pages.
> >
> >To better address the needs of our core contributors, we're now focusing
> >our strategy on the curation, collaboration, and admin processes that take
> >place on a variety of pages. Many of these processes use complex
> >workarounds -- templates, categories, transclusions, and lots of
> >instructions -- that turn blank wikitext talk pages into structured
> >workflows. There are gadgets and user scripts on the larger wikis to help
> >with some of these workflows, but these tools aren't standardized or
> >universally available.
> >

Nearly every ambitious project starts with huge promises and fizzles out
with a "change in focus". What's the underlying issue here? How can we get a
product to a point where it's deployed and usable? I know there's a problem
with scope creep for Wikimedia projects (due to design by committee), but
that alone can't be the reason.

I know no one wants to admit failure, but when WMF says something is in
maintenance mode they really mean they're killing the project. Can there be
a postmortem for this, so that we can at least learn something from the failure?

- Ryan


_______________________________________________
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] Collaboration team reprioritization [ In reply to ]
Something that I would find interesting is a more detailed explanation of
the reasoning behind the decision to put Flow into maintenance mode instead
of continuing efforts to make it suitible for more diverse purposes. I'm
not sure that Flow could ever fully replace all talk pages, but I tilt in
favor of simplified interfaces for newcomers.

Pine
_______________________________________________
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>