Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Peter Southwood]

Agree about the 3 features, have not given sufficient though to the rest yet to 
comment.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 4:04 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

Thank you, Quim Gil and your team all the effort that went into
discuss-space. We've seen a great platform being developed.
It was far from ready, however, and my impression was we were in a
pre-release phase. To add to the lessons learned, let me share my thoughts
on this.

From the recurring feedback that the forum did not become part of
contributors' everyday workflow, that groups are still using facebook for
similar purposes, we can deduce that a crucial feature-set was missing:
integration with our everyday on-wiki workflow. This would include 3
features:
* Notifications within Echo.
* Automatic listing of active and on-topic discussions on wiki pages (in
project namespace mostly).
* Including (transcluding) discussions on wiki-pages.

The first one is crucial, the next two "just" very important. If there will
be any similar solution in the future, these will be the hard criteria for
adoption and success.
Without these features the expectation that this forum becomes widely
adopted was unfounded: it's still in its infancy and it was judged too
early.

The foundation of it - an established forum engine - is solid, any solution
that would be chosen in the future would recreate this or similar
functionality. That would be a massive endeavour. The WMF devs have their
hands full all the time, how would that be possible?

I'm sure the success of such a project hinges on the above critical
features. Even if the WMF stops developing these features, nothing is lost:
interest from volunteers might be enough to develop some of these features.
I've shown interest in one of these, GSoC also will be an opportunity for
motivated developers to contribute and grant proposals could be made for
the most important features. In true collaborative fashion, the WMF can
enable the community to turn this experiment into a fully-featured,
integrated product. I believe this is the best path to take, that's in line
with the Mid-Term Plan's targets.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 11:31, Quim Gil  wrote:

> While we remain committed to this important goal ...


Given how overwhelming the positive expectations are about this project, I
think the best path to take for the WMF is to halt the development, but
continue operating the platform and motivate volunteers to get involved
with its development. At least that's how I see the ideal role of WMF in
our Movement.

The Space blog, which continues to fill
> a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> new home.
>

A subjective note: I think both the blog and the forum would be more
accessible on simpler URLs, I've always found "discuss-space" unusual.
Wikimedia Space is a good name for those projects all together but in the
URLs I find it confusing.

I would have suggested these URLs instead:
* "discuss.wmflabs.org"
  * or simply "discourse.wmflabs.org" as usual in the free-software
community
  * or "forum.wmflabs.org" (following the KISS
 principle)
* "blog.wmflabs.org"
* "events.wmflabs.org/calendar"
* "events.wmflabs.org/map"

If any of these is released to production, ".wmflabs.org" would be replaced
by ".wikimedia.org"


Thank you, Quim for asking feedback from the community.

Aron (Demian)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Aron Manning]

Thank you, Quim Gil and your team all the effort that went into
discuss-space. We've seen a great platform being developed.
It was far from ready, however, and my impression was we were in a
pre-release phase. To add to the lessons learned, let me share my thoughts
on this.

From the recurring feedback that the forum did not become part of
contributors' everyday workflow, that groups are still using facebook for
similar purposes, we can deduce that a crucial feature-set was missing:
integration with our everyday on-wiki workflow. This would include 3
features:
* Notifications within Echo.
* Automatic listing of active and on-topic discussions on wiki pages (in
project namespace mostly).
* Including (transcluding) discussions on wiki-pages.

The first one is crucial, the next two "just" very important. If there will
be any similar solution in the future, these will be the hard criteria for
adoption and success.
Without these features the expectation that this forum becomes widely
adopted was unfounded: it's still in its infancy and it was judged too
early.

The foundation of it - an established forum engine - is solid, any solution
that would be chosen in the future would recreate this or similar
functionality. That would be a massive endeavour. The WMF devs have their
hands full all the time, how would that be possible?

I'm sure the success of such a project hinges on the above critical
features. Even if the WMF stops developing these features, nothing is lost:
interest from volunteers might be enough to develop some of these features.
I've shown interest in one of these, GSoC also will be an opportunity for
motivated developers to contribute and grant proposals could be made for
the most important features. In true collaborative fashion, the WMF can
enable the community to turn this experiment into a fully-featured,
integrated product. I believe this is the best path to take, that's in line
with the Mid-Term Plan's targets.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 11:31, Quim Gil  wrote:

> While we remain committed to this important goal ...


Given how overwhelming the positive expectations are about this project, I
think the best path to take for the WMF is to halt the development, but
continue operating the platform and motivate volunteers to get involved
with its development. At least that's how I see the ideal role of WMF in
our Movement.

The Space blog, which continues to fill
> a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> new home.
>

A subjective note: I think both the blog and the forum would be more
accessible on simpler URLs, I've always found "discuss-space" unusual.
Wikimedia Space is a good name for those projects all together but in the
URLs I find it confusing.

I would have suggested these URLs instead:
* "discuss.wmflabs.org"
  * or simply "discourse.wmflabs.org" as usual in the free-software
community
  * or "forum.wmflabs.org" (following the KISS
 principle)
* "blog.wmflabs.org"
* "events.wmflabs.org/calendar"
* "events.wmflabs.org/map"

If any of these is released to production, ".wmflabs.org" would be replaced
by ".wikimedia.org"


Thank you, Quim for asking feedback from the community.

Aron (Demian)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Aron Manning]

Also +1 to Guillaume's comment, I couldn't have said better. A
user-friendly forum, like discuss-space is most needed by those, who want
to join the movement, whom the WMF wants to attract, not to those who are
comfortable with the current solutions.

And IRC being an appropriate real-time platform? It's a serious privacy
violation with the IP addresses published. It took me an hour to learn
about cloaks (to hide the IP) and find someone, who would add a cloak...
how many newbies would do that?
IRC also goes against the wiki way with "forgetting" all the history, about
which I always had concerns besides that it's very impractical: long-term
discussions cannot take place or the user has to be always online...

Aron (Demian)

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 23:32, Guillaume Paumier 
wrote:

> > That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
> using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is a
> classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from the
> Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large number
> of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> (he/him)
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

[Pine W]

I'm fine with people having some private discussions. The more formal
the discussion is, and the more public the implications of the
discussions are, then the more I think that the discussions should be
public with the exception of discussions involving information which
there is a strong reason to keep confidential such as certain types of
banking information or information which would de-anonymize an
individual good faith contributor to the Wikimedia projects who has
not consented to having their identity published. Binding policy
decisions which are mare through RfCs should have the final RfCs be
public, although private discussions about the RfCs are fine so long
as they don't involve canvassing or meatpuppetry.

I'm fine with what Nicole's publication of the video in its current
form, and I'm thankful that we got the video at all. She wasn't
required to publish any of it, although I think that publishing it was
a good idea and is beneficial.

There are legal issues involved with recording people without their
knowledge, and these laws vary by jurisdiction. I generally don't
encourage people to record video and/or audio of meetings without the
knowledge of everyone who is participating, especially if they have
not researched the relevant local laws. As a courtesy, even if
recording video and/or audio of people without their knowledge is
legally allowed, I usually encourage notification of people who will
be recorded and giving them a chance to opt out.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Victoria Coleman]

+1 to Guillaume’s comment. 

Best,


Victoria Coleman

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Guillaume Paumier  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen  a écrit :
> 
>> I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
>> 
>> Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is either on
>> the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
>> 
>> Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
>> fine.
> 
> 
> That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
> using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is a
> classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from the
> Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large number
> of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
> 
> -- 
> Guillaume Paumier
> (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open

[Gnangarra]

Wikimania is fast approaching, this year it'll be held in Bangkok and as
always the Wikimedia Foundation has a limited number of opportunities to
assist people to attend. There are two types of scholarships the first
being a full scholarship which covers, travel, accommodation, and
registration, the second a  partial scholarship that covers accommodation
and registration.

This year for the first time East, South East Asia, and Pacific  (ESEAP) as
collaboration between the region we'll be your host for Wikimania.  The
region has placed a high importance on collaboration and knowledge sharing
this years Wikimania program will reflect that. Our theme is;
*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*

How does this impact on scholarship? ESEAP is looking for people who are
prepared to share their knowledge to help develop potential future
leaders.  We'll be looking for two broad areas of contributions, from those
who have successfully developed programs, and those  newer contributors who
want to develop their skills to do more but have never been to a Wikimania
to broaden their support networks.

As you apply please agree to share your details with the local affiliate
should they also have scholarships available. When answering questions if
you have urls to reports, dashboards, and events reports please provide
them. Rather than writing lots of words again have your past recordings
speak.

On behalf of ESEAP community, and the Scholarship committee we look forward
to seeing you in Bangkok in August.

--
Gnangarra
Wikimania Scholarship committee Co-chair

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2020
August 5 to 9
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi,

The IRC channels where public, on-topic discussions are held usually have
public logging, like #wikimedia-office. And regardless of the channel,
discussions within them have no bearing on onwiki actions. In other words,
binding decisions cannot be made solely on IRC. That is very different with
a movement strategy discussion.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 13:32 Aron Manning  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a
> recording made in public. Please express your views in a good-faith and
> respectful manner.
>
> On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view.
>
>
> To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels and the
> admin back-channels to start with.
>
>
> Aron
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:21, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Nicole,
> >
> > While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
> > distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you
> say
> > it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
> > or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia
> projects,
> > we do things in full public view.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> > > of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> > > for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> > > of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> > > where needed.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Todd,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > > > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > > > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > > > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > > > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > > > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > > > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > > > might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and
> get
> > > > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > > > stay tuned.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Nicole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Nicole,
> > > > >
> > > > > The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example,
> > > several
> > > > > jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
> > > > > presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is
> > > clearly
> > > > > being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the
> video.
> > > Could
> > > > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts,
> including
> > > any
> > > > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> > > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> > > strategy
> > > > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken
> part.
> > > The
> > > > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 -
> > you
> > > > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> > > Hindi,
> > > > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > > > strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This current round of community conversations is the last
> > opportunity
> > > > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> > > finalized
> > > > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project,
> local,
> > > or
> > > > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an
> > ongoing
> > > > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all
> the
> > > > > > feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue
> > commenting
> > > > > > and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be
> as
> > > > > > closely facilitated and documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above
> > > report
> > > > > > on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Juergen Fenn]

Am 19.02.20 um 22:52 Uhr schrieb Yaroslav Blanter:
>> Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
>> fine.
>>
> Apparently not if people go there en masse instead of using on-wiki
> channels.


Most people do not go to TwitFaceTube in order to publish something
about themselves, but they use the closed channels those services
provide. That makes a difference. On-wiki everything is public by default.

Regards,
Jürgen.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FY1819 Fundraising Report

[Philip Kopetzky]

Hi Chuck,

since this is hopefully a less busy season of the year, have the internal
discussions yielded anything that might help in breaking these numbers down
a little bit more? :-)

Best,
Philip

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 03:59, Chuck Roslof  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts about how this information could be useful
> for local affiliates and communities. We'll discuss internally to see if we
> might be able to share more information in the future in order to achieve
> those benefits in ways that don't raise legal concerns or create excessive
> overhead for our fundraising team. We're entering into the busiest time of
> the year for online fundraising, though, so it'll be at least a few months
> before we are able to address the question internally.
>
>  - Chuck
>
> ==
> Charles M. Roslof
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Pronouns: they /he
> 
>
> NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> .
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:27 AM Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Chuck for digging out that old email, it does explain why this
> isn't
> > done for every country.
> > Chris and Sandra have a point though, because this can't be a legal issue
> > for most European countries for example. In return, the local
> organisations
> > and communities would benefit from an added layer of feedback based on
> > their work.
> >
> > Furthermore, how and how much we fundraise will be one of the important
> > talking points when implementing the recommendations, especially to set a
> > benchmark to evaluate if involving local organisations in the fundraising
> > process actually works or not.
> >
> > Best,
> > Philip
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 09:38, Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland <
> > rient...@wikimedia.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Chris.
> > > Furthermore: Wikimedia Nederland, like all chapters, puts a lot of
> effort
> > > in raising awareness of and support for the Wikimedia projects.  I
> would
> > > really like to know if these efforts 'pay off'.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sandra Rientjes
> > > Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland
> > >
> > > tel.(+31) (0)30 3200238 (ma, di, do)
> > > mob. (+31) (0)6  31786379 (wo, vrij)
> > >
> > > www.wikimedia.nl
> > >
> > >
> > > Mariaplaats 3
> > > 3511 LH  Utrecht
> > >
> > >
> > > Op do 3 okt. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Chris Keating <
> > > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi Chuck,
> > > >
> > > > The reasons the question keeps getting asked is because it was never
> > > really
> > > > answered in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > The only good reason I can think of for not publishing country-level
> > data
> > > > is that there are some countries where that could create risks to the
> > WMF
> > > > or individuals because they're places where giving donations to a US
> > > > nonprofit is either illegal or politically risky.
> > > >
> > > > However that doesn't apply to most countries, so why not publish the
> > data
> > > > for most of the world?
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:34 AM Chuck Roslof 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Philip,
> > > > >
> > > > > We do not publish country-level fundraising numbers. My colleague
> > > Stephen
> > > > > discussed why on this list a few years back, so rather than
> > > paraphrasing
> > > > > his previous email I'll just provide a link to it:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085576.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > > ==
> > > > > Charles M. Roslof
> > > > > Legal Counsel
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > Pronouns: they /he
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> > > > > information in it. If you have received this message by accident,
> > > please
> > > > > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
> > > > advice
> > > > > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or
> staff
> > > > > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means,
> > please
> > > > see
> > > > > our legal disclaimer
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:05 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> > > > philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Patricia,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for the report! Is it possible to get a country-by-country
> > > > > breakdown
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Fæ]

To help with overly "shouty" templates, I did create
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fae/talk_page_trimmer
 on
Commons which 'shrinks' long notices on the presumption that noting a
possible "copyright problem" does not need lots of threats because not
everyone is a vandal. The code is open source, it's very stable and anyone
on Commons can opt-in.

A system of "friendly notice alternative bots" which newbies could opt-in
to if they act in good faith and want to take policies seriously could help
to make any project seem less hostile. Anyone that does something like ask
for help at a noticeboard, does not need to be shouted at by torch-wielding
villagers. I recall several newbies fleeing the project after getting just
a couple of very shouty notices and presuming everyone thought they were a
crimmo.

Fae

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 01:50, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> It would be nice to have a tool for long standing editors to clean up a
> newbies talk page for them, leave messages for the overeager templaters,
> and help them out / welcome them in untemolsted language.
>
> Then a little ML could go a long way in guessing which newbies are in this
> situation and generating a queue for newbie-care. ~~~
>
> 
>
> On Wed., Feb. 19, 2020, 4:35 p.m. Andy Mabbett,  >
> wrote:
>
> > I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> > an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> > as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
> >
> > Her six sequential edits - her first and only contribution to
> > Wikipedia - totalled 1254 characters, and were conducted over the
> > space of 30 minutes. They were no the best quality, lacking sources,
> > but were benign, and exactly what one might expect an untutored novice
> > to do as a first change.
> >
> > As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> > page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> > discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> > characters or 665 words.
> >
> > How do other projects deal with such cases?
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >


-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,