Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
I don't know if we can confidently assume non-registered users know that they're using a shared IP - one of the most frequent complaints from readers, historically, was some variant on why the am I getting all these messages, I never edited anything with varying degrees of alarm/distress. A. On 11 January 2014 06:10, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, at 6:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote: These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors: ... 2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address They already share talk page and contribs. I don't see notifications being a problem: each of them *knows* that the IP is shared, and has registration instructions readily available if such situation is a problem. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)
Andrew sums up the situation in the UK very well. For some Wikimedian in Residence positions they are entirely funded by the chapter. Others involve funding from both the institution and the chapter. A third model involves a residency being funded by a third party. For example, there's a residency which is being announced later this week working with a leading health charity which is being funded by a third party. It's not announced publicly yet, so can't give details, but watch this space! Stevie On 12 January 2014 19:26, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote: In Norway, without exception; all 5 wikipedians in residence are either paid by the institution (3) or they are retired pensioners from their institution. No one paid by chapter or wmf. This means they 'belong' to the institution and feel quite a lot lotalty there. Erlend Den 12. jan. 2014 13:13 skrev Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk følgende: It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants; some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is not uncommon. Andrew. On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum), Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the organisation where they are working with. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. Fair enough. So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and allow users that do create an account to retroactively rename their contribs). Wouldn't that affect caching though? -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 13 January 2014 05:18, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. Fair enough. So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and allow users that do create an account to retroactively rename their contribs). Wouldn't that affect caching though? We've talked about using the cached Parsoid HTML for read requests (with user-specific CSS styling applied at request time) rather than uncached MW HTML renders for a while. This'd be a good impetus to actually doing that. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
I'm not into the technicalities, but to hide ip's entirely on the sites would be the biggest advance in improving privacy I can think of... regards, Thyge - Sir49 2014/1/13 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. Fair enough. So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and allow users that do create an account to retroactively rename their contribs). Wouldn't that affect caching though? -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Bonjour
I assume thhis is some sort of spam; here's a translation: Hello, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to get to know you and form a sincere friendship with you, please reply to me. I promise I'll be honest and maintain a good relationship with you. Kisses,Macoral Marriet Make of that what you will. ,Salvidrim! Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:08:53 + To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org From: mamarr...@yahoo.co.jp Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Bonjour Bonjour, Je m'excuse pour le dérangement, je voudrais faire votre connaissance et liée une amitié sincère avec vous, prière de me répondre. Je promets d'être honnête et de garder une bonne relation avec vous. baisers Macoral Marriet ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Bonjour
Absolutely yes. It's suffucient to check in internet. Il 13/gen/2014 21:29 Benoit Landry benoit_lan...@hotmail.com ha scritto: I assume thhis is some sort of spam; here's a translation: Hello, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to get to know you and form a sincere friendship with you, please reply to me. I promise I'll be honest and maintain a good relationship with you. Kisses,Macoral Marriet Make of that what you will. ,Salvidrim! Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:08:53 + To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org From: mamarr...@yahoo.co.jp Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Bonjour Bonjour, Je m'excuse pour le dérangement, je voudrais faire votre connaissance et liée une amitié sincère avec vous, prière de me répondre. Je promets d'être honnête et de garder une bonne relation avec vous. baisers Macoral Marriet ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 13/01/14 20:37, Risker wrote: m...@uberbox.orgOf course there already exists a way to thank IP editors. It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]. It is far more personal, far more likely to encourage the user to edit further (and maybe create an account?) based on research on the effects of template versus personalized talk page messages to new editors, and doesn't require anyone to write any code whatsoever. I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I can see it now - a thank link that goes to the user's talkpage and opens a new section edit window, maybe with the header prefilled... but that would force a real interaction, and encourage real discussion... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message. That's empirically not true. If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page message takes several new page loads and steps. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
Indeed. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit thank. I hit okay. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit the talk link, I hit the new section button, I fill in my message, I save my message. Ultimately, though, this compares apples to oranges; nobody is technologizing this kind of user interaction because nobody is removing the ability to leave thankful talk page messages - indeed, I think they still serve a very useful purpose. I tend to thank people when they've made an edit I appreciate; I head over to their talkpage and give barnstars when this is indicative of wider good work on their part, or it's a /really/ great edit. All we've done is added some granularity to the system, reducing the barrier for small amounts of thanks. On 13 January 2014 14:24, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message. That's empirically not true. If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page message takes several new page loads and steps. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Oliver Keyes Product Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Blog posts by Foundation Board members
Dear all, Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have posted the first of a new series of monthly blog posts to the Wikimedia blog. The first post, from Vice Chair Phoebe Ayers, is an introduction to the Board, its mandate, and its work within the community. You can find that post at https://https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/13/introduction-to-the-board-of-trustees/ blog.wikimedia.orghttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/13/introduction-to-the-board-of-trustees/ /2014/01/13/introduction-to-the-board-of-trustees/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/13/introduction-to-the-board-of-trustees/ Board members will take turns publishing one or two new posts every month, where they will explore ongoing initiatives of the Board and discuss topics relevant to the movement and the Wikimedia community. We hope you'll enjoy these posts, and also that you'll take time to comment, offer suggestions, and get involved in a dialog with the Board of Trustees. Regards, Jay Walsh (for communications) ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a mechanical thank any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with people without having to actually say yeah, I agree somewhere. That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be expected from Wikimedia. Risker On 13 January 2014 17:36, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Indeed. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit thank. I hit okay. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit the talk link, I hit the new section button, I fill in my message, I save my message. Ultimately, though, this compares apples to oranges; nobody is technologizing this kind of user interaction because nobody is removing the ability to leave thankful talk page messages - indeed, I think they still serve a very useful purpose. I tend to thank people when they've made an edit I appreciate; I head over to their talkpage and give barnstars when this is indicative of wider good work on their part, or it's a /really/ great edit. All we've done is added some granularity to the system, reducing the barrier for small amounts of thanks. On 13 January 2014 14:24, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message. That's empirically not true. If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page message takes several new page loads and steps. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Oliver Keyes Product Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
Steven Walling, 13/01/2014 23:24:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic
user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using
notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.
That's empirically not true.
If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
message takes several new page loads and steps.
This is technically not true. Gadgets such as the navigation popups or
LiveRC can places dozens of message types on talk pages with one or two
clicks, including {{thanks}} or {{grazie}} (for IPs) on it.wiki. See
screenshot: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LiveRC-anteprima.jpg
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a mechanical thank any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with people without having to actually say yeah, I agree somewhere. That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be expected from Wikimedia. I don't view Talk page messages and thanks notifications as competing or detracting from each other, and I think pretty much everyone works on Thanks would agree. They are additive. It's helpful to have different levels and types of ways to engage with each other on the wiki. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 14/01/14 00:18, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote: Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those. Fair enough. So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and allow users that do create an account to retroactively rename their contribs). Yes. Wouldn't that affect caching though? Not very much. We already give anonymous users a session cookie on edit, which suppresses the frontend cache, the primary reason being (drumroll) user talk page message notification. So the impact would be that the cache-suppressing cookie would have a longer expiry time. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 13 January 2014 15:03, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a mechanical thank any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with people without having to actually say yeah, I agree somewhere. That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be expected from Wikimedia. I don't view Talk page messages and thanks notifications as competing or detracting from each other, and I think pretty much everyone works on Thanks would agree. They are additive. It's helpful to have different levels and types of ways to engage with each other on the wiki. Agreed. Re technological whizbangs If you're receiving this message, it's because I've successfully pushed on coloured lumps of plastic, sending electrical signals translated from English-language characters into unicode characters, themselves translated into binary signals, which are encoded by a lump of intricately etched and forked metal the size of a transit card. These are then sent as electrical signals, translated into pulses of light, translated back into electrical signals (repeat an unknown number of times), and reach a hunk of metal on your floor or desk containing a similarly etched piece of metal that translates them from pulses of electricity to unicode strings to character representations on a screen that ( assuming it isn't a CRT or some weird LED...thing) consists of a couple of squares of plastic with liquid, crystalline shapes connected to tiny transistors. There's tamed lightning there too. Some of the technical details may be wrong (Dammit, Jim, I'm an analyst, not a computer engineer!) but the point is that if 'technological whizbangs' are what you're objecting to, you should probably junk your computer. What I think you probably mean instead is that the message conveyed is, because it's in a standardised format, somewhat artificial. It doesn't give you the freedom to express the full gamut of human sentiments. And, well, it doesn't, because it was never designed to. If you want to write a love sonnet to a user for clearing up the copyright backlog, 'thanks' is not for you. If you want to drop in a template that transcludes in some CSS and SVG images in order to render a barnstar (potentially containing a love sonnet - I don't judge), 'thanks' is not for you. On the other hand, if what you want to do is say 'good job', you probably don't need all the capabilities and complications of a system oriented around trancluded templates with love sonnets in them. It's a much higher barrier than is actually necessary for what you're trying to achieve, which is just the internet equivalent of a thumbs up. Is there some loss of human contact? Well, potentially - there is whenever things are standardised - but, at least with the things /I/ use thanks for, there wasn't really any human contact initially. Thanks for your edit on [page] on a talk page doesn't really provide much more than [user] thanked you for your edit on [page]. I know that whenever I've received thanks for that kind of thing, it's cheered me up quite a bit, so evidently the loss isn't /that/ great. In exchange, it dramatically reduces the barrier to giving that thumbs up - we're getting almost 3,000 thanks actions a day, every day, and I'd argue that's A Good Thing (and probably not something we saw when the options were 'Wikilove or bust', because a high barrier for a one-size-fits-all action does not benefit small uses of that action). Yes, it's less human than big long messages and barnstars and plaudits. That's fine - things worthy of big long messages != things worthy of a thumbs up, and Thanks is designed for the latter. When we have some spare cycles, if we want to reduce the barrier to more long-form thank-yous, that's probably a good thing to do as well. Just, please, nobody send me any love sonnets. -- Oliver Keyes Product Analyst Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 01/13/2014 01:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote: I don't follow what you're saying about a bot account being the only alternative. You can use the exact same user interface exposure (i.e., little (thanks) links) and simply post to the IP's talk page rather than creating an Echo (logged-in user) notification. I can't see any need for a separate bot account. Yeah, we could do that (using the edit API). However, that still leaves the issue of a totally separate user experience (one goes in your contributions, one doesn't; different for the recipient), depending on what kind of user the recipient is. Matt Flaschen ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: we're getting almost 3,000 thanks actions a day, every day It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of barnstars — Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 01/13/2014 10:14 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: Without publically displayed IPs for anonymous edits, people couldn't do that. That has, traditionally, been very much useless in practice. It's extraordinarily rare that abuse teams will even speak to checkusers, and they have some veil of authority. Honestly, the normal block system would work just as well on those anonymized users (with autoblocks doing their trick doing effectively the same as an IP block for 99% of cases). -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote: The English Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030. That's... come /on/ Tim! You know better than to say silly things like that. The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the prevented edits and the revert that would have taken place). :-) I used to do a lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's sake - I tried doing a bit over a year ago. The amount of surface vandalism has gone down a *lot* since. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 14/01/14 15:38, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote: The English Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030. That's... come /on/ Tim! You know better than to say silly things like that. The abuse filter alone could very well account for this (the prevented edits and the revert that would have taken place). :-) I used to do a lot of patrol back in those years and - for nostalgia's sake - I tried doing a bit over a year ago. The amount of surface vandalism has gone down a *lot* since. Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic priority of WMF for many years. You are saying you have never heard of it before? Well, here is some reading material for you: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/ https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Increase_Participation http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/22/year-in-review-and-the-road-ahead-for-global-development/ http://opensourcebridge.org/sessions/1061 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/63549 -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic priority of WMF for many years. You are saying you have never heard of it before? Well, here is some reading material for you: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/ https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Increase_Participation http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/07/22/year-in-review-and-the-road-ahead-for-global-development/ http://opensourcebridge.org/sessions/1061 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/63549 Thanks for these links, which underscore how much work we have left to do. None of these problems are trivial, and concerted efforts on multiple fronts, both technical and social, are the only thing that will make a difference in the long run. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 01/13/2014 11:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote: Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic priority of WMF for many years. My own opinion about how that decline isn't nearly as bad as some claim is well known. But also entirely besides the point: I was referring to that specific statement of yours: A linear regression on the edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030. I kept expecting you to add Netcraft confirms it at some point. :-) -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On 14/01/14 16:08, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 01/13/2014 11:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote: Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic priority of WMF for many years. My own opinion about how that decline isn't nearly as bad as some claim is well known. But also entirely besides the point: I was referring to that specific statement of yours: A linear regression on the edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030. I kept expecting you to add Netcraft confirms it at some point. :-) Well, obviously I extrapolated a model to the point of absurdity, but I think it's better to derive a model from data than to make predictions based on unsubstantiated hope. In my post at 05:19 UTC, I assumed a stable edit rate, which I thought was an optimistic upper bound. But Matt thought that it was actually pessimistic? So I gave an example of a model that I consider to be pessimistic, for comparison. I don't think either model is realistic, I think the most likely reality lies somewhere in between. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
