Re: [Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
Michael Snow wrote: > To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and > usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must > admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed > (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to warrant > serious consideration, I was disappointed that someone could then be so > callous about the need for cultural sensitivity because it most directly > impacts "only 0.55% of the world population" in this case. There is no > meaningful difference in order of magnitude there. > I at least agree that it warrants a new thread. > We have significant distortions in the makeup of our community that > affect our culture. There are quite a few groups that are seriously > underrepresented, in part because our culture comes across as unfriendly > to them at best. I talked about African-Americans because it's what was > applicable in that particular situation and I happen to have some > familiarity with the issues. It could just as well have been Australian > Aborigines or another cultural group that has issues with our community. > I'm not as prepared to explain those concerns, but I would welcome > people who can educate us about such problems. It's legitimate to be > wary of things that promote American cultural hegemony, which is another > distortion, but that's not really warranted when the concern relates to > a minority culture in the US. > I would agree that the use of the word "lynch" was unfortunate because of the suggestion that anyone should be hanged. Cultural sensitivity allowed for me to grasp that the use was metaphorical, and not literal. Using that choice of words by a person who is not from the United States as an excuse to play the American race card can only exacerbate the problem. I would expect that the language is strong enough to withstand attacks by the connotational flavour of the month. Have you forgotten that in its origin Lynch's Law was applied more to those Virginia residents whose loyalty to the Revolution left something to be desired. Slavery and race relations had nothing to do with it. Caution in avoiding offence with one's words must be coupled with a willingness to avoid seeing offence in the words of others. One needs to begin from the assumption that a word is being used in its most ordinary sense. Just like "gay" is not restricted by modern homosexual connotations, so too "lynch" must not be narrowly interpreted in the context of the African-American experience. There is no need to impose modern American connotations on one's words. > Some people seem to have gotten hung up on the issue of intent. I didn't > say there was any intent, by the community or individuals, to exclude > certain groups or to create a hostile environment for them. I actually > tried to be as careful as possible not to say that. The point is that > even in the absence of intent, it's possible for our culture to appear > hostile to such groups. We didn't have any intent to be hostile toward > living people, either, yet we've had a long struggle to cope with the > consequences of that impression created by our culture. > I am willing to accept the premise that African-Americans are underrepresented among Wikipedia, but I am not willing to jump to the speculative conclusion that this is almost entirely attributed to our choice of words. The pusillanimity of political correctness will not resolve disproportionate representation. > Consider the principle of not "biting" newcomers, which relates to a > similar problem. It's not about the intent of the person doing the > "biting", it's about the impact on those who encounter it. We need to be > more welcoming to people, and striving for more cultural awareness is > part of that. > > It will take more than platitudes to solve that problem. Sometimes we need to apply a little dinkum oil to a problem, at other times we need to value a person's single contribution. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
Michael Snow wrote: > To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and > usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must > admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed > (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to warrant > serious consideration, I was disappointed that someone could then be so > callous about the need for cultural sensitivity because it most directly > impacts "only 0.55% of the world population" in this case. There is no > meaningful difference in order of magnitude there. > While the part of your message I callously cut off below, was very good and valuable, coming from a chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation, the above paragraph really does merit taking into task of. Considering that I really thought you were a person who edited regularly, I genuinely thought you couldn't be blinded by stats. Apparently not so. Click through is almost irrelevant in this particular instance, and anyone who regularly actually uses interwikis, would tell you so. _We *glance* at the intewiki sidebar, and evaluate things on that basis, many times a day, without ever clicking._ When the bar is collapsed, and we seek an infobox, or more otherwise formatted generic information on a particular subject, and we click to see if it is available on a different language (personally I do so very often with regard to French films), we feel like fools "haha, made you look". I'll keep coming back to the institutional issues that have been laid so bare here, until they are fixed. Sorry. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
On 6/7/2010 5:25 PM, Aphaia wrote: > True, but it reminded me on the time English Wikipedia sanctioned > non-latin script usernames and blocked them indefinitely and forced > them to rename for months. At that time many English Wikipedia sysops > supported this idea and much more of them were indifferent. If I > recall correctly, no board member offered any complaint on that as you > stated now. > That's before I joined the board, but actually Florence, who was chair of the board then, definitely did speak up on that issue at the time. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/059034.html > I think I can understand your frustration but still I feel it > overreaction. I need to say unconcious Anglocentric hegemony on > Wikimedia project is sometimes irritating, not only the recent > suppression of "other language" links, and English speaking people > should be much more aware of that, rest their complaints won't be > listened to, even in case it is valid by itself, like in this case. > The specific case here isn't so much the issue, it's an example to illustrate the larger concern about how we make our culture insular and closed, such that the environment seems hostile to others. Certainly English-speaking people are as responsible for that as any other part of our community, if not more, as your example illustrates. But given the seriousness implications this has for the overall health of our community in the long term, I don't think it's an overreaction to want to address it. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United >> States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to >> qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication. >> When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion that results in the >> material being removed as a copyright violation. The actual rights owner >> or his legal agents have never been a part of the conversation. >> > And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you > have to declare that a work is free to use commercially? > > Whether a work is orphaned will vary from one work to another. Do you have a specific work in mind? I was just providing a plausible circumstance where this might apply. I said nothing about commercial use. I have no idea what you mean by "JuJU". . Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Upcoming default UI change of Wikipedia in nine languages
Hello! As a part of global roll-out of the new user interface to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Projects[1][2], the user experience team is working with translators and the user experience ambassadors to prepare for rolling out the new default user interface to nine languages of Wikipedia, Japanese, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Russian, Polish, Portuguese, and Dutch. [3] As Cary mentioned in his email on June 2nd, translators and ambassadors are making great progress in translating and spreading the news via appropriate channel.[4] Argentina Chapter released the press release today. [5] Volunteers of graphic work have been contributing amazing work in localizing the new logo.[6] The new logo for the nine languages will be also released at the same time of the user interface updates. Thanks to the effort of everyone involved, we are confident that we can conduct the deployment later this week. The scheduled time and the date is: 5:30am UTC, Thursday, June 10 This is a targeted schedule and the deployment can take up two to three hours, so you won't see the change until a few hours later. Software release to high-traffic site like Wikipedia(s) require cautions and technical operations folks will monitor the site performance closely. So there is always a possibility that releases may be re-scheduled at the last minute. But so far the schedule looks attainable. We will keep you posted if the schedule is adjusted later in the week. Cheers, Naoko Komura Head of User Experience Programs, Wikimedia Foundation [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/wikimedia-gets-ready-for-some-big-changes/ [2] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/ [3] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/new-wikipedia-interface-to-nine-more-languages/ [4] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Releases/Default_Switch [5] http://wikimedia.org.ar/wiki/Prensa/Wikipedia_renueva_su_apariencia [6] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0 -- Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
Native Americans used to compare European Americans to spiders. http://www.native-languages.org/cheyenne-legends.htm That referred to our quick adaptive nature that was not rooted in tradition. We seem to be very clever and good at things, but not committed to anything. I think the problem has probably grown much worse as the broad spectrum of our activities impacts traditional societies. Not only is our music different, but there is a hundred kinds of it; likewise our other cultural artifacts. I suspect users from many cultures do better in an environment that is sheltered from the full impact of Western culture. Fred Bauder > To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and > usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must > admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed > (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to warrant > serious consideration, I was disappointed that someone could then be so > callous about the need for cultural sensitivity because it most directly > impacts "only 0.55% of the world population" in this case. There is no > meaningful difference in order of magnitude there. > > We have significant distortions in the makeup of our community that > affect our culture. There are quite a few groups that are seriously > underrepresented, in part because our culture comes across as unfriendly > to them at best. I talked about African-Americans because it's what was > applicable in that particular situation and I happen to have some > familiarity with the issues. It could just as well have been Australian > Aborigines or another cultural group that has issues with our community. > I'm not as prepared to explain those concerns, but I would welcome > people who can educate us about such problems. It's legitimate to be > wary of things that promote American cultural hegemony, which is another > distortion, but that's not really warranted when the concern relates to > a minority culture in the US. > > Some people seem to have gotten hung up on the issue of intent. I didn't > say there was any intent, by the community or individuals, to exclude > certain groups or to create a hostile environment for them. I actually > tried to be as careful as possible not to say that. The point is that > even in the absence of intent, it's possible for our culture to appear > hostile to such groups. We didn't have any intent to be hostile toward > living people, either, yet we've had a long struggle to cope with the > consequences of that impression created by our culture. > > Consider the principle of not "biting" newcomers, which relates to a > similar problem. It's not about the intent of the person doing the > "biting", it's about the impact on those who encounter it. We need to be > more welcoming to people, and striving for more cultural awareness is > part of that. > > --Michael Snow > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
True, but it reminded me on the time English Wikipedia sanctioned non-latin script usernames and blocked them indefinitely and forced them to rename for months. At that time many English Wikipedia sysops supported this idea and much more of them were indifferent. If I recall correctly, no board member offered any complaint on that as you stated now. I think I can understand your frustration but still I feel it overreaction. I need to say unconcious Anglocentric hegemony on Wikimedia project is sometimes irritating, not only the recent suppression of "other language" links, and English speaking people should be much more aware of that, rest their complaints won't be listened to, even in case it is valid by itself, like in this case. Cheers, On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and > usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must > admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed > (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to warrant > serious consideration, I was disappointed that someone could then be so > callous about the need for cultural sensitivity because it most directly > impacts "only 0.55% of the world population" in this case. There is no > meaningful difference in order of magnitude there. > > We have significant distortions in the makeup of our community that > affect our culture. There are quite a few groups that are seriously > underrepresented, in part because our culture comes across as unfriendly > to them at best. I talked about African-Americans because it's what was > applicable in that particular situation and I happen to have some > familiarity with the issues. It could just as well have been Australian > Aborigines or another cultural group that has issues with our community. > I'm not as prepared to explain those concerns, but I would welcome > people who can educate us about such problems. It's legitimate to be > wary of things that promote American cultural hegemony, which is another > distortion, but that's not really warranted when the concern relates to > a minority culture in the US. > > Some people seem to have gotten hung up on the issue of intent. I didn't > say there was any intent, by the community or individuals, to exclude > certain groups or to create a hostile environment for them. I actually > tried to be as careful as possible not to say that. The point is that > even in the absence of intent, it's possible for our culture to appear > hostile to such groups. We didn't have any intent to be hostile toward > living people, either, yet we've had a long struggle to cope with the > consequences of that impression created by our culture. > > Consider the principle of not "biting" newcomers, which relates to a > similar problem. It's not about the intent of the person doing the > "biting", it's about the impact on those who encounter it. We need to be > more welcoming to people, and striving for more cultural awareness is > part of that. > > --Michael Snow > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/06/2010 20:32, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: >> Aryeh, I was under the (apparently mistaken?) impression that at >> Wikipedia, the community makes the decisions > > Not exactly. If the community actually made decisions, Wikipedia > would be a direct democracy, and it's not. The community does have a > large say in decisions, but it doesn't make them, in the end. > Particularly not on technical issues, which have always been > controlled by a much smaller group. Ah! That's exactly what I was wondering from the beginning. Thank you for clarifying this point. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMDYzBAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L1nQH/0ZYkshwjTffjzBHV/EyXgIF qx9iMH9bD1b2tLMIg5k5tKi0ZmqoH1ReP6Up6LKH+xQZ+blXOoKao/15U0M4UNJW PT58E471B52BH40HkPl4ZHnErOIajTTa7ymZKVVg139UEz73evjtKhDDnURo7CSZ VPy3/3LPNJK3FSY92P2vHy+YgsoelCCAswsO9gMDBY3Oc8RzVi3NyG1/JspV0CZy QkAH85ggLfyhoHTyMs5DG8kq6btcaJnQ1+UxZVHA3XCW0jy1fKQ2GiUZmnkeD5DU Utt+tnL0AKu/6Y6zfXcG0YP/fC+p0uk81k/uqRqrTv+r24xSrT2ekIz6p9/VH4o= =OpcN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Ray Saintonge wrote: > > As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United > States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to > qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication. > When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion that results in the > material being removed as a copyright violation. The actual rights owner > or his legal agents have never been a part of the conversation. > And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you have to declare that a work is free to use commercially? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On 7 June 2010 23:16, Howie Fung wrote: > > > So in terms of a path forward, here is a proposal: > 1. Immediate revert so that all languages are exposed by default. > 2. We will continue work on a compromise solution. The current > interface is probably not perfect, so we’ll be continuing to look for > ways to improve it. We welcome your ideas -- please direct them to [2] > so we can keep track. > 3. We will A/B-test proposed solutions against the default. We'll > involve the community to design the A/B test (e.g., what % of traffic, > what threshold we use for decisions, etc). In response to the comments > about the data being only on enwp, we should be open to the fact that > different Wikipedias may require different implementations. > > You need also to take into account that almost 25% of the visits to enwp are from non-English speaking countries. Among these readers are users that might be recruited to read or even perhaps edit in their own language by noticing that there was a link visible. Wikipedia is more than a set of separate language projects. It is a connected set of language projects. The iw-links are what connects these projects. Hiding them on en-wp damages the other projects by cutting connections. Hans Rosbach ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed (rightfully so) that a 1% click rate was significant enough to warrant serious consideration, I was disappointed that someone could then be so callous about the need for cultural sensitivity because it most directly impacts "only 0.55% of the world population" in this case. There is no meaningful difference in order of magnitude there. We have significant distortions in the makeup of our community that affect our culture. There are quite a few groups that are seriously underrepresented, in part because our culture comes across as unfriendly to them at best. I talked about African-Americans because it's what was applicable in that particular situation and I happen to have some familiarity with the issues. It could just as well have been Australian Aborigines or another cultural group that has issues with our community. I'm not as prepared to explain those concerns, but I would welcome people who can educate us about such problems. It's legitimate to be wary of things that promote American cultural hegemony, which is another distortion, but that's not really warranted when the concern relates to a minority culture in the US. Some people seem to have gotten hung up on the issue of intent. I didn't say there was any intent, by the community or individuals, to exclude certain groups or to create a hostile environment for them. I actually tried to be as careful as possible not to say that. The point is that even in the absence of intent, it's possible for our culture to appear hostile to such groups. We didn't have any intent to be hostile toward living people, either, yet we've had a long struggle to cope with the consequences of that impression created by our culture. Consider the principle of not "biting" newcomers, which relates to a similar problem. It's not about the intent of the person doing the "biting", it's about the impact on those who encounter it. We need to be more welcoming to people, and striving for more cultural awareness is part of that. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > geni wrote: > > On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > > > >> I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta > >> Office actions pages: > >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions > >> > >> Please feel free to augment with additional info. > >> > >> Ryan Kaldari > >> > > > > The claim "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such > > notices even if they are spurious" isn't correct. I assume you meant > > to say "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices > > even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe > > harbour" and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status > > would be universal. > > > > > > > I have just changed the word "such" in the above to "validly > formulated". Unless the notice complies with all the elements required > by the law it is not a valid notice. A notice would include "A > statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and > under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to > act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly > infringed." > > There is an interesting question that comes out of this discussion: Is a > take-down notice a necessary pre-condition to issuing a counter-notice? > > I see nothing in the law making this a requirement. The only thing that > seems to support it is a kind of popular logic. > > Many things are removed by admins in what they believe to be a > good-faith compliance with the strict wording of the law. There is > often no mechanism for appealing legal interpretations within the > community. > > As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United > States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to > qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication. > When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion that results in the > material being removed as a copyright violation. The actual rights owner > or his legal agents have never been a part of the conversation. > > In my analysis it would be perfectly correct to issue a counter-notice. > The claim that there was a mistake would be simply based on the fact > that there was no valid takedown notice. If we are talking about an > orphan work there would be nobody to begin the kind of legal action > envisioned. If there was no formal takedown notice the Foundation > clearly cannot notify that person, and would be obliged to restore the > material within the usual time frame. > > The case of a seventy-plus year old orphan work is just one example > where this could be a useful procedure. > > Ray > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Well a counter-notice basically requires them to allow it to be republished under the law. I'm not sure we want to require the community to restore something that they deleted on their own accord. I think the appeal for those would and should be within the community itself. There is nothing of course that says that they can't take a sworn statement from the uploader that they have the right to upload it into account though. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
geni wrote: > On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > >> I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta >> Office actions pages: >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions >> >> Please feel free to augment with additional info. >> >> Ryan Kaldari >> > > The claim "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such > notices even if they are spurious" isn't correct. I assume you meant > to say "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices > even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe > harbour" and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status > would be universal. > > > I have just changed the word "such" in the above to "validly formulated". Unless the notice complies with all the elements required by the law it is not a valid notice. A notice would include "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." There is an interesting question that comes out of this discussion: Is a take-down notice a necessary pre-condition to issuing a counter-notice? I see nothing in the law making this a requirement. The only thing that seems to support it is a kind of popular logic. Many things are removed by admins in what they believe to be a good-faith compliance with the strict wording of the law. There is often no mechanism for appealing legal interpretations within the community. As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication. When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion that results in the material being removed as a copyright violation. The actual rights owner or his legal agents have never been a part of the conversation. In my analysis it would be perfectly correct to issue a counter-notice. The claim that there was a mistake would be simply based on the fact that there was no valid takedown notice. If we are talking about an orphan work there would be nobody to begin the kind of legal action envisioned. If there was no formal takedown notice the Foundation clearly cannot notify that person, and would be obliged to restore the material within the usual time frame. The case of a seventy-plus year old orphan work is just one example where this could be a useful procedure. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Because evidence is a great thing, but judgment is necessary too. It > would be nice if you could do everything strictly based on evidence, > but real life isn't so simple. Agreed. So why are you dismissing people's arguments on the basis that they stem from such judgement (while simultaneously passing similar judgement of your own)? You can't have it both ways. It's entirely reasonable to vigorously disagree with others' arguments, of course. But when the rationale is "they are not backed by data," it's unreasonable to exempt the user experience team and yourself from this standard. > Just because there are complaints about *many* problems, doesn't mean > there are complaints about *all* problems. Some problems draw few to > no complaints, by their nature. As previously noted, perceived clutter draws complaints. > If every problem really did trigger complaints, we wouldn't need > usability studies -- we could find all problems by just looking at > complaints. This isn't the case. We've agreed that such comments mustn't be interpreted as representative samples, so the value of usability studies is clear. However, this particular "problem" was identified *not* through such a study (despite the fact that one was ongoing), but through speculation stemming from a general design principle of questionable applicability. > There is ample evidence that when users are presented with more > buttons to click, they take longer to find what they want and make > more mistakes. In my observation, a list of twenty interlanguage links is perceived *not* as twenty separate links, but as one coherent list. It's instantly clear that most or all of the labels are written in a language foreign to the user, and little or no time is spent examining them individually. However, I'm not suggesting that my observation is sacrosanct; I welcome scientific data. > We can apply this generality to specific cases without having to > directly check it every time. Yes, but not when dealing with a materially different entity. > We don't have the budget to run a usability study on every individual > possible problem. Of course not. But for reasons explained throughout the discussion, many of us regard this feature as immensely important and feel that it should not be demoted in the absence of data indicating that the change is beneficial. Howie Fung has acknowledged that additional data is needed, and I applaud this response. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
I agree that the User Experience Team and the community are still learning how to most effectively work together to do product development. Things aren't perfect, and it make take some time before we get to a comfortable point. I think the best thing we can do is to continue learning from each experience, and hopefully we'll come to a better process as we do more and more projects. We'll make mistakes from time to time and that's just part of the learning process. The important point is to acknowledge where we can do better and learn from those experiences. Based on this feature, I think there are a number of areas where we could improve. First, I do agree with the various statements that the tone of the revert was overly harsh and authoritarian. I can assure you that that was not the intent of the revert -- we've always endeavored to be open in our collaboration, even in (and hopefully especially in) times of disagreement. We've also been iterative in our approach, and decisions are rarely, if ever, considered final as the web affords us the luxury of continual improvement. Nevertheless, words are important, and the ones used in the revert should have conveyed more openness to discussion, which they did not. We'll make sure that these intentions are clear in the future. We also recognize that the compromise solution that we proposed may not have met the needs of some within the community. But I hope people understand that the shortcomings of this proposal did not arise from a failure to listen. There have been many, many insightful and helpful comments which we took into consideration when developing the proposal. Another area in which we can improve is data. The debate on the data, especially what path of action the data would suggest, is a very legitimate debate (incidentally, I think the data may have been partly misinterpreted [1], but the debate is nonetheless valid). This is a case where, because the data is imperfect, we will require additional perspectives to make a reasoned decision (someone used the phrase “life isn’t so simple”). And as several posters have pointed out, the members on this mailing list represent a small, self-selecting sample of users, as do the members of the User Experience Team. We carry our own biases into these decisions. One way to overcome the inherent biases, as Eugene mentioned, is to be more data driven. In this particular case, I am an advocate of using A/B testing as a way to better understand the impacts of a change in the user interface. In general, I am very much in favor of having better analytics so that the balance of decision-making tilts even more towards data. So in terms of a path forward, here is a proposal: 1. Immediate revert so that all languages are exposed by default. 2. We will continue work on a compromise solution. The current interface is probably not perfect, so we’ll be continuing to look for ways to improve it. We welcome your ideas -- please direct them to [2] so we can keep track. 3. We will A/B-test proposed solutions against the default. We'll involve the community to design the A/B test (e.g., what % of traffic, what threshold we use for decisions, etc). In response to the comments about the data being only on enwp, we should be open to the fact that different Wikipedias may require different implementations. In fairness, I should say clearly that while #1 will happen immediately, #2 and #3 will probably not be immediate. Our team will need to balance this feature against other commitments (e.g., the next phase of the default rollout later this week, which will roll out with the inter-wiki links expanded). From a broader standpoint, I think there needs to be a direct discussion around how to involve the community in these types of decisions. I’ve created a page on the usability wiki to discuss ideas [3] and look forward to the discussion. Please let us know what you think of the proposed path forward. Howie [1] Based on the replies to the post, it seemed as though some people might have thought that the ~1% figure for Monobook referred to all clicks. To be clear, the ~1% refers to ~1% of total left-nav clicks, not clicks overall. But better data is still needed to inform this decision. [2] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_Link_Proposals [3] http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_Development_Process_Ideas On 6/7/10 1:21 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > One major problem I have with this entire initiative, at least as I > understand it, is that data was only collected from en.wp and mostly > from native English speakers. Wikipedia is not monolingual, although > many of our users are... and it's important to remember that many of > these people are monolingual in languages other than English. Without > further study, we have no way of knowing how many of the conclusions > we may have drawn from the data will still hold true for > non
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
One major problem I have with this entire initiative, at least as I understand it, is that data was only collected from en.wp and mostly from native English speakers. Wikipedia is not monolingual, although many of our users are... and it's important to remember that many of these people are monolingual in languages other than English. Without further study, we have no way of knowing how many of the conclusions we may have drawn from the data will still hold true for non-English-speaking audiences. I had hoped that the internationalism of our organization would grow, rather than any sort of increasing centralization and the treatment of en.wp as a "flagship" project, the capital of the Wikimedia empire. It is not. -m. On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, wrote: Sorry for top-posting. Austin, think about who "everyone" is. The folks here on foundation-l are not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to try to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve making decisions that not everyone agrees with. People here have given some useful input, but I think it's far from obvious that the user experience team has made a "mistake.". (I'm not really intending to weigh in on this particular issue -- I'm speaking generally.) >>> >>> Sue, you appear to be making the assumption that the folks here are >>> writing from a position of their personal preferences while the >>> usability team is working on the behalf of the best interests of the >>> project. >>> >>> I don't believe this comparison to be accurate. >> >> I agree that this comparison is inaccurate, but I disagree that this >> was Sue's assumption. All she said was that vocal outcry on a mailing >> list should not be construed as community consensus. I hope that no >> one disagrees with this. > > "All she said", no. She didn't state that. You're putting words in her mouth. > > Perhaps I'm guilty of the same crime. But What Sue said was > > "The folks here on foundation-l are not representative of readers. > The job of the user experience team is to try to balance all readers' > needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve making decisions > that not everyone agrees with." > > I read that as contrasting the purposes of the UX team and the people > commenting here. I am unable to determine any other reason for > bringing these two statements together except for the purpose of > drawing the comparison I suggested was being made, even with your > proposed alternative. > > We all communicate unclearly at times, — and I am more than willing to > accept that I saw a comparison there which was not intended. > > In the interest of good communication I hope that you will take the > time to consider how I could have come to the understanding that I > did. I'm sure many other people on this list had the same > understanding. > > What we have here is a nearly unanimous response with respect to the > disposition of the interwiki links. If you'd like me to bring this to > the larger community I can do so but my understanding was that the > normal community process was already quashed with respect to this > change. > > While no single forum is indicative of a consensus of the entire > community, the broadness of the response here is a strong indicator. > > > [snip] >> The bad thing is the us versus them tone in this and other messages. >> There is a larger question about ownership and decision-making that is >> subtle and hard, and we need to continue to work these out. Since I'm >> going to put myself in the vocal minority and disagree with most of >> the points in this message, I'll start with what I agree with. :-) > > I don't believe that there is anything particularly subtle here. We > have many community processes in which foundation staff are welcome to > contribute to as peers with a common interest. > > When you fail to do so you have created the "us" vs "them" by your own > actions. > > Rather then trying to draw "us" vs "them" lines in the sand, I am in > fact pleading that the foundation discontinue doing so. > > In order to do that I must first acknowledge the division which I > believe has already formed. [more on this later] > >>> I think the people here are speaking up for the sake of the readers, >>> and for the sake of preserving the best of the existing design >>> principles used on the site. I know I am. >> >> Absolutely. Assume good faith. I know you and many others feel the >> same way about the UX team > > Absolutely. > > I would suggest that the broader community (and not necessarily the > participants here) has greater experience than the usability team, and > even the portion of the community represented here has a more diverse > composition than the UX t
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Corrected. Ryan Kaldari On 6/7/10 12:02 PM, geni wrote: > On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > >> I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta >> Office actions pages: >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions >> >> Please feel free to augment with additional info. >> >> Ryan Kaldari >> > The claim "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such > notices even if they are spurious" isn't correct. I assume you meant > to say "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices > even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe > harbour" and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status > would be universal. > > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, wrote: >>> Sorry for top-posting. >>> >>> Austin, think about who "everyone" is. The folks here on foundation-l are >>> not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to >>> try to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes >>> involve making decisions that not everyone agrees with. People here have >>> given some useful input, but I think it's far from obvious that the user >>> experience team has made a "mistake.". (I'm not really intending to weigh >>> in on this particular issue -- I'm speaking generally.) >> >> Sue, you appear to be making the assumption that the folks here are >> writing from a position of their personal preferences while the >> usability team is working on the behalf of the best interests of the >> project. >> >> I don't believe this comparison to be accurate. > > I agree that this comparison is inaccurate, but I disagree that this > was Sue's assumption. All she said was that vocal outcry on a mailing > list should not be construed as community consensus. I hope that no > one disagrees with this. "All she said", no. She didn't state that. You're putting words in her mouth. Perhaps I'm guilty of the same crime. But What Sue said was "The folks here on foundation-l are not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to try to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve making decisions that not everyone agrees with." I read that as contrasting the purposes of the UX team and the people commenting here. I am unable to determine any other reason for bringing these two statements together except for the purpose of drawing the comparison I suggested was being made, even with your proposed alternative. We all communicate unclearly at times, — and I am more than willing to accept that I saw a comparison there which was not intended. In the interest of good communication I hope that you will take the time to consider how I could have come to the understanding that I did. I'm sure many other people on this list had the same understanding. What we have here is a nearly unanimous response with respect to the disposition of the interwiki links. If you'd like me to bring this to the larger community I can do so but my understanding was that the normal community process was already quashed with respect to this change. While no single forum is indicative of a consensus of the entire community, the broadness of the response here is a strong indicator. [snip] > The bad thing is the us versus them tone in this and other messages. > There is a larger question about ownership and decision-making that is > subtle and hard, and we need to continue to work these out. Since I'm > going to put myself in the vocal minority and disagree with most of > the points in this message, I'll start with what I agree with. :-) I don't believe that there is anything particularly subtle here. We have many community processes in which foundation staff are welcome to contribute to as peers with a common interest. When you fail to do so you have created the "us" vs "them" by your own actions. Rather then trying to draw "us" vs "them" lines in the sand, I am in fact pleading that the foundation discontinue doing so. In order to do that I must first acknowledge the division which I believe has already formed. [more on this later] >> I think the people here are speaking up for the sake of the readers, >> and for the sake of preserving the best of the existing design >> principles used on the site. I know I am. > > Absolutely. Assume good faith. I know you and many others feel the > same way about the UX team Absolutely. I would suggest that the broader community (and not necessarily the participants here) has greater experience than the usability team, and even the portion of the community represented here has a more diverse composition than the UX team. However, if we were to combine the two— we would have something strictly superior to the component parts. Unfortunately, we're still able to speak about the community and the UX teams as distinct entities. This division will continue so long as the relationship is viewed in the context of "decision"/"feedback" rather than as a dialogue between peers. > That said, keep in mind that most people assume that everyone thinks > like they do. This is not an us versus them thing; this is a natural, > human thing. I heard a great tip from a psychologist once: If you want > to know what people truly think, ask them what they think other people > think. [snip] While we are on the topic of lessons in human nature, please allow me to introduce the list to the fundamental attribution error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error We all may find it informative. > Given this quirk of huma
Re: [Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > thanks for the explanation, I think the whole banning was quite justified. > But besides that, as I also asked in an earlier email, I can understand > geniice's feeling that it is unclear what the topics are (which can be > solved by an agenda as he suggests or a description of what tend to be the > topics nowadays as I asked). Could you perhaps make it more insightful? Realized I never responded to this; sorry about the late response. As I said before, office hours are meant to be open-ended gatherings, explicit time where people should feel comfortable asking questions and meeting people in a more informal setting. I usually have a few things in mind that I bring up during office hours, but I don't impose those topics. I've often been surprised at the direction of the conversations, and I've almost always walked away feeling better informed. Moreover, I've found it a great way to bolster relationships, and I've noticed a lot of constructive activity happens on strategy wiki after these office hours. Sometimes, IRC meetings are called with more explicit intentions; in those cases, agendas are usually posted beforehand. =Eugene -- == Eugene Eric Kim http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates http://www.blueoxen.com/ == ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On 7 June 2010 19:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta > Office actions pages: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions > > Please feel free to augment with additional info. > > Ryan Kaldari The claim "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious" isn't correct. I assume you meant to say "The Foundation is required by law to comply with such notices even if they are spurious if it doesn't want to lose it's safe harbour" and even there I'm not sure the loss of safe harbour status would be universal. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
Hi Everyone - Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 04:00-05:00 UTC, Wednesday, 9 June. Local timezones can be checked at http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010&month=6&day=9&hour=04&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 As always, you can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. More details at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours Topics that may be addressed: The Call for Action, mobilizing people around proposals, Wikimania. Thanks! Hope to see many of you there. > Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On 7 June 2010 16:52, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > Good design isn't just about following the user path; it's also about > guiding the users in a way that's appropriate to the mission of the > work. This appears to sum up the problem with this change: the usability team focused on some ideal of usability, and ignored the fact that they switched off an important path which people used to "freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Was the Foundation mission statement expressly part of the usability initiative? Was the obvious conflict with the mission statement considered when the list was switched to collapsed by default? (That's a "yes or no" question, and I'd love to hear the answer.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Aryeh, I was under the (apparently mistaken?) impression that at
> Wikipedia, the community makes the decisions
Not exactly. If the community actually made decisions, Wikipedia
would be a direct democracy, and it's not. The community does have a
large say in decisions, but it doesn't make them, in the end.
Particularly not on technical issues, which have always been
controlled by a much smaller group.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:22 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> You're simultaneously arguing for evidence-based decisions and explanations,
> while also adding to the pile of anecdotal (or simply made-up) logic behind
> the decisions ("my first guess...").
Because evidence is a great thing, but judgment is necessary too. It
would be nice if you could do everything strictly based on evidence,
but real life isn't so simple.
> And you're doing it as someone with the
> ability to gather actual, hard data on interlanguage link usage, which adds
> a bit more annoyance.
I have no more access to click data than you do. I only have commit
access and toolserver root access, nothing else.
> As far as I'm aware, nobody has properly graphed interlanguage link
> occurrence on the English Wikipedia. The data I found querying non-redirects
> in the article namespace on the English Wikipedia is available here.[1] As
> you can see, 1774000 articles have 0 interlanguage links (53%). Looking at
> pages with 5 or fewer interlanguage links, it's 2948039 articles (88%).
That doesn't weight by views. We care about people's ability to use
an average page *that they actually visit*, not a page selected
uniformly at random. Some kind of view or click data is needed.
> The links are placed in the sidebar, which generally has more than enough
> room to accommodate these links. The links are completely out of the way,
> but still accessible to the user. While there has been some jibber-jabber
> about the page layout being "psychologically free," having a few links in
> the sidebar that don't overlap anything or get in the way of anything hardly
> seems like it's going to cause user claustrophobia.
You can collect data from real usability studies, where people
actually sit in a room, with eye-tracking to see how much time they
waste looking at interface elements they aren't going to use. This is
not practical to do for every single interface element. Instead,
rules of thumb result from that kind of study, like "reduce the number
of interface elements". These may or may not be correct in any
particular case, but they are not jibber-jabber.
> The default should be flipped. There is near-universal agreement on this
> point at this point, including from Erik Moeller. I expect this will happen
> on Monday.
This might be a good idea. I think a solution that only showed some
of the links might be even better (although maybe not), but I'm not
strongly committed to the idea that hiding the interlanguage links
entirely is better than showing them all, if those are the only two
choices right now.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:37 PM, David Levy wrote:
> I'm not claiming that most users complain. I'm noting that there are
> _some_ complaints when there's anything remotely worth complaining
> about (and sometimes even when there seemingly isn't).
Just because there are complaints about *many* problems, doesn't mean
there are complaints about *all* problems. Some problems draw few to
no complaints, by their nature. If every problem really did trigger
complaints, we wouldn't need usability studies -- we could find all
problems by just looking at complaints. This isn't the case.
> So yes, it's true that any substantial change to the interlanguage
> links' default behavior would have generated complaints, regardless of
> whether it was a good idea. This, however, does not automatically
> render said complaints invalid.
No, but it means the complaints are only worth as much as the
arguments they bring forth.
> If there were evidence that the longstanding configuration caused a
> problem addressed by the change, this likely would outweigh the
> complaints. There is no such evidence.
There is ample evidence that when users are presented with more
buttons to click, they take longer to find what they want and make
more mistakes. We can apply this generality to specific cases without
having to directly check it every time. In fact, we have to, what
with our lack of infinite time and money.
> We frequently receive complaints from unregistered users lacking any
> meaningful degree of familiarity with the site.
Complaints like "I can't access the site" or "I can't figure out how
to do X", not like "I took half a second longer to find the interface
element I was looking for than if there had been no interlanguage
links". The latter isn't even observable by users themselves, only in
usability studies. But it makes a difference, when you add it up.
> Before investigating potential solut
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On 7 June 2010 14:55, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael Snow wrote: >> If you don't know the history of racial issues in the US, you might not >> realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In that cultural >> context, it is not something to be joked about. > Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of other > cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means "execution by > mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that "lyniching" is an > offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said something > silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world population are > sensitive about lyncing. Michael's post, by claiming inflammatory content that was not actually present at all, is the sort of thing that someone would post attempting to derail a discussion. I don't think that was his intent, but he still should have known better. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
I've added a new section on DMCA compliance to both the en.wiki and meta Office actions pages: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions Please feel free to augment with additional info. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
AGK wrote: > On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:54, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > >> Let's start a meta page where people can >> register thoughts/complaints/grievances/joy/sorry to WMF staff. If >> it is a >> serious concern, the staff can respond after someone consults with >> them and >> receive either a you can handle it or I can handle it response. >> > > I always thought that the mailing lists filled this role, albeit off- > wiki and in a less rigid way. > > Sorry, but I think both implementations above fail in one respect in terms of what I was proposing. My idea was that there would be a mechanism where an implicit trust between the community experts and the foundation ( == staff and trustees - as long as we are going to sadly progress on the course of professionalizing even the board of trustees) would be gradually engendered. There is the aspect of signal to noise ratio that would be adequately addressed by an arrangement where the foundation actors themselves were the ones recruiting who they thought could provide insightful comments on the concerns and realities of the various communities. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:54, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > Let's start a meta page where people can > register thoughts/complaints/grievances/joy/sorry to WMF staff. If > it is a > serious concern, the staff can respond after someone consults with > them and > receive either a you can handle it or I can handle it response. I always thought that the mailing lists filled this role, albeit off- wiki and in a less rigid way. AGK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
Maybe we should discuss if the usability is more important than multilinguism (It's not!) in Wikimedia Projects. On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva < > If one wants to talk about usability, it's important to keep track the > most impaired users, because they have more urgent needs. (Yeah, > people with little English skills are actually in a disadvantageous > position on wiki-en: there are few multilingual clues at the first > spot, and then the "see in the language I prefer" section is now > behind an unnecessary "Languages") > > BTW, I liked that "universal signs" idea of some poster I lost track > here. I just think it doesn't really apply to the language list (that How it doesn't apply? See the examples: http://languageicon.org/examples.php > should be fully expanded), but rather to "Discussion", "Edit", etc There is an uviversal edit button: http://universaleditbutton.org/ > Some universal symbols: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_symbol... The language icon was inspired by those icons: Feed icon: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/feed-icon-guidelines/ Share icon: www.openshareicons.com/ Geotag icon: http://www.geotagicons.com/ OPML icon: http://opmlicons.com/ I think it's a good idea to use an icon for language. -- Fajro ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
phoebe ayers wrote: > > Uh... much as I like Kat (and she's not the only female member, > there's also Bishakha), singling out her view as representative of all > women on the projects is, arguably, part of the problem. Are there so > few women speaking up as part of the community discussion that this is > really necessary? > > Point taken. Thank you. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, wrote: >> Sorry for top-posting. >> >> Austin, think about who "everyone" is. The folks here on foundation-l are >> not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to >> try to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes >> involve making decisions that not everyone agrees with. People here have >> given some useful input, but I think it's far from obvious that the user >> experience team has made a "mistake.". (I'm not really intending to weigh in >> on this particular issue -- I'm speaking generally.) > > Sue, you appear to be making the assumption that the folks here are > writing from a position of their personal preferences while the > usability team is working on the behalf of the best interests of the > project. > > I don't believe this comparison to be accurate. I agree that this comparison is inaccurate, but I disagree that this was Sue's assumption. All she said was that vocal outcry on a mailing list should not be construed as community consensus. I hope that no one disagrees with this. I see a good thing and a bad thing happening in this thread. The good thing is that this discussion is airing a lot of legitimate concerns about the specific change in question. I expect that the resulting design changes will be better after this whole thing plays out, which is The Right Thing. The bad thing is the us versus them tone in this and other messages. There is a larger question about ownership and decision-making that is subtle and hard, and we need to continue to work these out. Since I'm going to put myself in the vocal minority and disagree with most of the points in this message, I'll start with what I agree with. :-) > I think the people here are speaking up for the sake of the readers, > and for the sake of preserving the best of the existing design > principles used on the site. I know I am. Absolutely. Assume good faith. I know you and many others feel the same way about the UX team That said, keep in mind that most people assume that everyone thinks like they do. This is not an us versus them thing; this is a natural, human thing. I heard a great tip from a psychologist once: If you want to know what people truly think, ask them what they think other people think. Given this quirk of human nature, we need more rigorous ways of making decisions than polling people, especially small, self-selecting groups. Being data-driven is one of those ways. But being data-driven is hard, too, because you still have to interpret the data. Which brings me to... > I was alarmed when I heard the click rates: 1%. That's an enormous > number of clicks, considerably higher than I expected with the large > number of things available for folks to click on. Agreed. 1% is absolutely a large number of clicks, especially given our overall traffic. Someone in a different message also pointed out that click rates alone don't tell the whole story; if they did, then one could argue that we should eliminate the Edit button. Good design isn't just about following the user path; it's also about guiding the users in a way that's appropriate to the mission of the work. In that vein, I think the substance of most of the messages in this thread have been very positive. It's resulted in data (such as Max's numbers) that have helped to round out everyone's understanding of the issue, but most importantly, it's resulted in critical context as to why people may be acting a certain way and why these things matter in the first place. > There is a clear attitude from the foundation staff that I, and > others, are perceiving in these discussions. The notion that the > community of contributors is a particularly whiny batch of customers > who must be 'managed', that they express demands unconnected from the > needs of the readers... and that it is more meaningful when a couple > of office staff retreat to some meeting room and say "we reached a > decision". Sadly, this attitude appears to be the worst from the > former volunteers on the staff—they are not afraid to speak up in > community discussion, and feel a need to distinguish themselves from > all the volunteers. > > This needs to stop and a point needs to be made clear: I mostly disagree with this. First, let me refer back to Sue's original point. The people on this list are not representative of the community of contributors. It is a self-selecting sample. That doesn't invalidate the substance of what's said on this list, but it does raise questions about claims of consensus when there seems to be a large, vocal group of people agreeing on a point. Passionate discourse on this list is a data point, but it's only one data point, and it needs to be interpreted in the context of many data points. Second, most people -- both staff and people on this list -- _are_ disconnected from the needs of the majority of the readers. None o
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Chad wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Birgitte SB wrote: >> --- On Mon, 6/7/10, Victor Vasiliev wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, >>> Michael Snow >>> wrote: >>> > If you don't know the history of racial issues in the >>> US, you might not >>> > realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In >>> that cultural >>> > context, it is not something to be joked about. >>> >>> Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of >>> other >>> cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means >>> "execution by >>> mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that >>> "lyniching" is an >>> offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said >>> something >>> silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world >>> population are >>> sensitive about lyncing. >> >> That post can only being seen as an example of "agressive disrespect of >> other cultures" by people who think happening to be born in the USA is an >> agressive disrespect of other cultures. Americans are people too! >> >> Birgitte SB > > This post can be seen as furthering an OT fork of this (otherwise > productive) thread. Can everyone who wants to discuss the cultural > sensitivities surrounding lynching please take it offlist? Thanks. This post can be seen as the list administrator asking everyone to be cool, don't go looking for things to be offended by, and try to keep what's already an obscenely long thread on-topic. Thanks! Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Michael Snow wrote: >> >> Similarly, we know that the community population skews young and male. >> That has important consequences, and some of those unfortunately >> reinforce our lack of diversity. It's been pointed out what a >> male-centric approach we sometimes have, in the enthusiasm and manner >> with which certain subjects are covered, and the oblivious attitude >> toward potential offensiveness of various images. This comes across to >> all too many women as a hostile culture. Most large online communities >> do not have the kind of gender imbalance we have. This is a serious >> issue we need to address. The foundation could do targeted outreach >> forever to recruit underrepresented groups (whether it's ethnicity, age, >> gender, or other factors), and it would accomplish very little without >> significant improvements in our culture. >> > person on the Board of Trustees who came strongest in > defense of a unfettered retention of sensual images of > educational value was its (single?) female member. It Uh... much as I like Kat (and she's not the only female member, there's also Bishakha), singling out her view as representative of all women on the projects is, arguably, part of the problem. Are there so few women speaking up as part of the community discussion that this is really necessary? (One interesting exercise is to count the number of posts by women on this very list. Even controlling for pseudonyms and unknown variability, it's still around 1/10 or lower, a good number of which are from me. Many of the rest are from WMF staffers. Did you notice? I do, every time I post, and not just because I try to not excessively spam the list.) -- Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
(not pointing to anyone specifically) could we please stop this side track now? I think everybody knows what the other person means, and it doesn't really matter after all... at least not to this discussion. Lodewijk 2010/6/7 Birgitte SB > > > --- On Mon, 6/7/10, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > > > From: Victor Vasiliev > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a > Bad Idea, part 2 > > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" < > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 8:55 AM > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, > > Michael Snow > > wrote: > > > If you don't know the history of racial issues in the > > US, you might not > > > realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In > > that cultural > > > context, it is not something to be joked about. > > > > Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of > > other > > cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means > > "execution by > > mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that > > "lyniching" is an > > offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said > > something > > silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world > > population are > > sensitive about lyncing. > > That post can only being seen as an example of "agressive disrespect of > other cultures" by people who think happening to be born in the USA is an > agressive disrespect of other cultures. Americans are people too! > > Birgitte SB > > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > --- On Mon, 6/7/10, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > >> From: Victor Vasiliev >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad >> Idea, part 2 >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >> Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 8:55 AM >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, >> Michael Snow >> wrote: >> > If you don't know the history of racial issues in the >> US, you might not >> > realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In >> that cultural >> > context, it is not something to be joked about. >> >> Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of >> other >> cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means >> "execution by >> mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that >> "lyniching" is an >> offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said >> something >> silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world >> population are >> sensitive about lyncing. > > That post can only being seen as an example of "agressive disrespect of other > cultures" by people who think happening to be born in the USA is an agressive > disrespect of other cultures. Americans are people too! > > Birgitte SB > > This post can be seen as furthering an OT fork of this (otherwise productive) thread. Can everyone who wants to discuss the cultural sensitivities surrounding lynching please take it offlist? Thanks. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > From: Victor Vasiliev > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad > Idea, part 2 > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 8:55 AM > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, > Michael Snow > wrote: > > If you don't know the history of racial issues in the > US, you might not > > realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In > that cultural > > context, it is not something to be joked about. > > Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of > other > cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means > "execution by > mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that > "lyniching" is an > offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said > something > silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world > population are > sensitive about lyncing. That post can only being seen as an example of "agressive disrespect of other cultures" by people who think happening to be born in the USA is an agressive disrespect of other cultures. Americans are people too! Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > If you don't know the history of racial issues in the US, you might not > realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In that cultural > context, it is not something to be joked about. Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of other cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means "execution by mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that "lyniching" is an offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said something silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world population are sensitive about lyncing. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
Andrew Garrett wrote: > I will say to be fair that the best response to what you perceive as a > poor design choice in somebody else's code is not to revert them and > say "There, I fixed it for you. Thank me later.", but perhaps to > discuss it with them first and find a compromise. There's an > imperative to listen and respond to community feedback, but quietly > changing somebody else's code against their explicit wishes is not a > good way to make your point. Have you looked at r67281? That was not a revert. Given the phrase "collapse all navs but the first" it changed it to "collapse all navs but the first or the interwiki one". That was a bug fix, you might even call it "fine tuning collapsiblenavs". And it was not *me* considering it a bug. It was backed up by the community. I wasn't trying to make a point, just trying to finally fix it and stop the mourning. I wasn't too successful :) However, it wasn't against their explicit wishes, since they hadn't expressed their wishes. Had they wontfixed bug 23497, I wouldn't have done that. Or expressed that in the bug, or this thread... It's worth noting the lack of feedback from the team here. There were a couple of replies by Howie after the fact, but other than those, the only coding staff replies were from Roan and you, which incidentally come both from the community. It was later revealed that Trevor had been on vacation for the last 2 weeks. That can partly explain the silence. I didn't know it. Although that could be taken a reason /for/ changing the code, too. We are editing each other code all the time. Extensions are more individual than eg. core, but still a one-line patch shouldn't be an issue. It was even stated later: "Anyone is welcome to touch usability code", I think the problem was that it was that it was "against their wishes", which I should have somehow guessed from being non-responsive. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
Andrew Garrett writes: > I will say to be fair that the best response to what you perceive as a > poor design choice in somebody else's code is not to revert them and > say "There, I fixed it for you. Thank me later.", but perhaps to > discuss it with them first and find a compromise. There's an > imperative to listen and respond to community feedback, but quietly > changing somebody else's code against their explicit wishes is not a > good way to make your point. > This is true. In that sense, I do feel that the revert itself was justified for the exact reasons you state, but that the message sent by the revert summary was harsh and authoritarian, as I said. Reverting that change with a gentler and more helpful summary, or even just leaving it in for some time while a compromise is being worked on (the latter should not be done as a rule, of course, to discourage the point-making by disruption you speak of), would've been a better course of action. Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
--- On Mon, 7/6/10, Andrew Gray wrote: > There is a piece of user js which was implemented on en > which does > this, incidentally: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manishearth/Scripts#Wikipedia_interwiki_translator > > - it turns, eg, "Espanol" into "Spanish (t)", with the (t) > link going > to a Google translate link for the target page. > > I haven't used it much, but it's a useful tool to have. If you surf in Google Chrome, you get a bar on every foreign-language page asking you if you want to have the page (google-)translated into your language; one click then does the job. A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On 7 June 2010 08:42, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Given the availability of translations that are just a click away, not > even a native English speaker has to fear that clicking on an interwiki > link will produce an unintelligible page. There could even be value to a > double list which gives the option of viewing the other language article > in its original form or in its machine translation. There is a piece of user js which was implemented on en which does this, incidentally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manishearth/Scripts#Wikipedia_interwiki_translator - it turns, eg, "Espanol" into "Spanish (t)", with the (t) link going to a Google translate link for the target page. I haven't used it much, but it's a useful tool to have. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I used the interwiki links all the time in this manner at work, and still do. > It was one of the things that turned me on to Wikipedia and caused me to > start contributing, and eventually to register an account. > > As others have said, if the interwiki links had not been visible by default, > I likely would not have discovered the feature, or discovered it only much > later. > > An interesting thing is that even if the interwiki articles were poor, or > incomplete, there was usually enough context provided to pick out the key > terms in the field in the relevant languages, providing a starting point for > further research and confirmation in and outside of Wikipedia. Extremely > useful. > > There is another way in which the interwiki links are useful. We need to remember that an article in one language is often developed without reference to the corresponding article in a different language. They are written quite independently from each other, and thus can give different perspectives on the same subject, or highlight different aspects of the same subject. In a controversial topic the differences could be startling. Given the availability of translations that are just a click away, not even a native English speaker has to fear that clicking on an interwiki link will produce an unintelligible page. There could even be value to a double list which gives the option of viewing the other language article in its original form or in its machine translation. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
On 6/6/2010 9:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Michael Snow wrote: > >> Similarly, we know that the community population skews young and male. >> That has important consequences, and some of those unfortunately >> reinforce our lack of diversity. It's been pointed out what a >> male-centric approach we sometimes have, in the enthusiasm and manner >> with which certain subjects are covered, and the oblivious attitude >> toward potential offensiveness of various images. This comes across to >> all too many women as a hostile culture. Most large online communities >> do not have the kind of gender imbalance we have. This is a serious >> issue we need to address. The foundation could do targeted outreach >> forever to recruit underrepresented groups (whether it's ethnicity, age, >> gender, or other factors), and it would accomplish very little without >> significant improvements in our culture. >> > Well, yes and no. > > Historically the first time the offensiveness of images > on wikipedia first came to a head (so to speak), was > the images on [[Clitoris]]. At least in that instance the > contributors who feigned the images as being offensive > to viewers -- while in many cases claiming *they* personally > weren't at all offended (!!) -- were predominantly male. My > recollection was/is that the defenders of a photographic > image on that page, instead of a schematic drawing, were > mostly female. > There have been a lot of red herrings brought up on all sides of that issue. Use of images in a context that is on-topic and educational is clearly one of those, although I would suggest that we can do better at supporting reader choice, because it's really the reader we should be putting in control of their own quest for information. > I don't deny the general point about the testosterone-laden > atmosphere in some areas of our community, but I do want > to note that even in the latest controversy over images, the > person on the Board of Trustees who came strongest in > defense of a unfettered retention of sensual images of > educational value was its (single?) female member. It > would be a serious mistake to claim that she was doing > so only to "fit in" with the lads. > (I assume you mean Kat, but she is not the only female board member.) I'm certainly not suggesting that. Sometimes it's easier to strongly argue positions that are counterintuitive to the role people might expect of you, because people are unlikely to suggest your convictions are skewed by your personal characteristics. I also think the focus on simple retention or deletion is almost a red herring sometimes, despite the conduct of another board member which basically framed the debate that way. The board's initial statement about educational images is kind of stuck there too, but we've been working on something a little more nuanced to come soon. In the meantime, I would encourage people to look at the discussion that's been happening on the Commons village pump regarding educational image use more generally. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
--- El dom 6-jun-10, Michael Snow escribió: > > I always think I don't have the page in my watchlist!!! > > > > Now, that's a reason to complain (Lynch the usability team!) > > > I trust that at least the last part of this was meant as a > joke, but I think it's worth a comment anyway. Michael, that was really off-topic, unnecessary, and a complete waste of bytes. When you write something sarcastically, the social connotations have zero relevance. I was ridiculing the excess of violence in the thread, that leads to nothing constructive. But then, perhaps the level of aggressiveness has reached a point where obvious sarcasm is taken literally? MarianoC.- PS: And to be fair; taking the lynching thing as a sensitive issue in USA is badly US centric; the term is used worldwide and in hundreds of languages, and has no necessary connection with black people. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
