Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-09 Thread Samuel Klein
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Flow is a long term bet that an architecture of structured comments will ultimately have fewer hard and fast limitations on how collaboration in wikis can work, and will accrue usability benefits very quickly (as it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-08 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: As I wrote to Risker, I think it's worth considering spending some development time on turning something like the Teahouse gadget (which allows one click insertion of replies on the Teahouse Q/A page) into a Beta Feature

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-08 Thread Erik Moeller
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: - Gabriel Wicke has done some experimentation with this as well, and is looking if he can dig up the old code for me. Very old indeed, but if anyone wants to take a look: https://github.com/gwicke/wikiforum -- Erik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Romaine Wiki
Hello all, I did a couple if simple tests on MediaWiki on Flow pages with often occurring edits. The tests failed. I am an admin on Commons, and I regularly have to remove an image on a talk page because it is for example a violation of copyright. I see no way to remove the copyright violation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 06.09.2014 23:14, Romaine Wiki wrote: Hello all, I did a couple if simple tests on MediaWiki on Flow pages with often occurring edits. The tests failed. ... So, there is flow, and instead of the community can work with it as it needs to work with, it does not flow but got stuck... To

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Romaine Wiki
Hi, I forgot to mention that we use a lot of template messages on talk pages to inform users about something. In a part of these templates we automatically add categories because we want to track the users who have problematic behaviour. Testing this by adding a category to a message in Flow

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Dan Garry
On 6 September 2014 15:33, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Flow doesn't automatically update template output -- it retains the output as it was when the user posted the comment. We can argue whether that's good or bad behavior, but it's worth doing so in the context of real examples.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Romaine Wiki
2014-09-07 0:33 GMT+02:00 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote: I am an admin on Commons, and I regularly have to remove an image on a talk page because it is for example a violation of copyright. I see no way to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote: There is one notable exception to the above, which is talk page header templates. One expects updates to a template used as a talk page header to update every page the template is currently transcluded on, which is not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Pine W
rik, I appreciate your engaging with this *early* enough for design decisions to be adjusted before Flow gets to major rollouts. Romaine, if the Dutch uses of features like templates are not being taken into account in how features are designed, I suggest contacting the Engineering community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: rik, I appreciate your engaging with this *early* enough for design decisions to be adjusted before Flow gets to major rollouts. Romaine, if the Dutch uses of features like templates are not being taken into account in how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote: ..last July... July 2013, for clarity. -- Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Product Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Tim Davenport
Erik Möller wrote: It's [Flow is] a system in early development, and has never been advertised as anything else. == *This statement is simply not true.* See the WMF's 2014-15 annual plan: https://archive.org/details/WikimediaFoundation2014-15AnnualPlan Page 20 (DIRECT QUOTE FOLLOWS):

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow - it does not flow

2014-09-06 Thread Pine W
Tim, I read that a bit differently. Flow is an *experimental* but already feature rich alternative... We will aim to cover one major set of new deployments per quarter, *carefully picking use cases*. This looks to me like the kind of incremental rollout that is appropriate. The idea of users