Re: [Wikimedia-l] Launch of Community Consultation on strategic approaches

[Pine W]

Thanks Luis. I am trying to wrap my mind around the strategy process and
how it interfaces with the many moving pieces in the Wikimedia universe.

A comment that I've heard from staff is that strategies and priorities seem
to shift frequently. This results in confusion and lack of clarity. Once
there is a coherent strategy that emerges from this process, will it remain
set for the next 12-24 months? (Even 12 months seems rather short. Perhaps
we could be looking at longer-term horizons and higher aspirations, with
clearly defined intermediate SMART goals.)

Thanks,
Pine

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Luis Villa  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > 2. You wrote, "This is a major step to help us prioritize the work of the
> > Foundation beginning in July 2016 and running for the next 12 to 24
> months
> > thereafter into a strategic plan." It seems that there will be some
> overlap
> > in the development of the 2016-2017 Annual Plan, and that the completion
> > of
> > the strategic plan process will come too late to significantly influence
> > the AP until after the AP is already being executed. Can you share with
> us
> > which principles are being used to guide the development of the 2016-2017
> > Annual Plan which this document [1] is scheduled to be published for
> > community review on March 31, 2016?
> >
>
> We mentioned this briefly in the FAQ
> ,
> but let me elaborate here:
>
> "We also need to finalize the Foundation’s strategy quickly, so that we can
> meet our 2016 Annual Plan deadlines and align our team and department
> strategies with the overall strategy."
>
>
> In other words, we really are waiting on the results of the public
> discussion before making our biggest annual plan choices. :) This is part
> of why the process is somewhat rushed; if we planned to use *other*
> principles,
> we could have had a multi-month process, but we really do want to use the
> outcome of this process to help guide the annual plan, so we do have to
> make it a bit tighter than we might otherwise have liked.
>
> We're splitting things up into "core" and "strategic" to help make this
> process fit together better: that will allow us to do initial planning on
> issues we expect will not be affected by strategy (e.g., "keep servers on")
> while waiting for the outcome of the public discussion.
>
> (For those who are curious for more details, I also addressed this somewhat
> in my metrics meeting talk
> 
> last week, and the question
>  at
> the end of it.)
>
> Hope that helps answer that question-
> Luis
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
> *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in the sum of all knowledge.*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Office hour regarding "Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia"

[Pine W]

Cross-posting.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Pine W 
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Subject: Office hour regarding "Motivational and educational video to
introduce Wikimedia"


Hi all,

I will have an office hour regarding the development of the Motivational
and educational video to introduce Wikimedia

project. I would appreciate your comments and questions about:

* The outline of the subjects that will be included in the videos
* Good practices for onboarding newcomers that may be leveraged in the
video series
* What to name the video series when it is released to the general public
* Translation of the public communications related to the videos, and
translation of the script
* Anything else related to the series

Please participate in a Doodle poll to help with scheduling the office
hour: http://doodle.com/poll/eu4m62ccdq4senuv

I also welcome questions and comments on the project talk page

.

Thank you!

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Todd Allen]

Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy
had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly
supported rolling it out. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_125#Gradually_enabling_VisualEditor_for_new_accounts
)

It's not Luddism, it's not "resistance to change", it's not "power users"
grumpy about newbies having an easier time, it's not anything like that.
It's that in the state it was initially released in, the thing did not work.

So yes, by all means, let's try new things. But try:

1: Asking us what we actually want, before coding something up and feeling
obligated to push it out. People are a lot more receptive to something they
asked for than something being forced upon them. That's been an issue with
Flow. It's not that it doesn't work well (though it doesn't), it's that it
wasn't wanted to start with. So instead of "Here's the new discussion
system", ask "What can we do to make our system of discussion better?"

2: Make sure it works. Have an opt-in beta phase. Doesn't have to be
perfect, but certainly make sure it's not breaking page formatting all over
the place. You'll notice, for example, that there wasn't really any
resistance to HHVM. It worked well, it was desirable, it was clearly fit
for purpose. So no, there isn't just a reflexive change aversion. Though
the previous missteps and hamfisted followups have, rather ironically,
created a lot of the reflexive change aversion that people said was there.

3: Be nice (but NOT condescending or patronizing) if an issue comes up.
"Superprotect" alienated people right quickly, and turned what could have
been a productive (if tense) conversation into a war. Same with refusal to
budge on VE and the arrogant tone several people took. Yes, some people
might be rude about objecting to the change. Don't sink to their level. If
they call the new software a steaming pile, ask "Could you offer more
concrete feedback?"

4: Don't surprise people. Not everyone follows the Village Pumps or what
have you. If a major new feature is set to roll out, do banners, do
watchlist notices, do whatever it takes, but make sure people know. When
Mediaviewer was rolled out, all of a sudden, I was just having images act
completely different. I had no idea what was going on. People are more
amenable to change if you brace them for it. Even better, do that to
develop a rollout strategy in advance with the community. (You already know
they want it; they asked for it. Right?)

5: If at all feasible, offer an easy opt-out. People are actually more
likely to give something a decent try if they know they can switch back if
they don't like it.

6: Show willingness to budge. "No, we won't do ACTRIAL, period." "You get
VE, like it or not." "You're getting Mediaviewer even if we have to develop
a new protection level to cram it down your throats!" That type of
hamfisted, I'm-right-you're-wrong approach will gear people right up for a
fight. Fights are bad. Discussions are good. But people don't like to talk
to a brick wall.

Many of us were asking for a WYSIWYG editor for some time, because we very
much need a way to reach out to prospective editors who are intimidated by
wikimarkup or just don't care to learn it. So it wasn't that we were
opposed to VE in principle. Good idea, bad execution.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> persisting with your idée fixe.
>
> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies.
> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It
> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>
> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of
> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>
> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>
> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent
> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is
> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over
> at WikiData.
>
> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an
> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or
> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish
> th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Launch of Community Consultation on strategic approaches

[Luis Villa]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> 2. You wrote, "This is a major step to help us prioritize the work of the
> Foundation beginning in July 2016 and running for the next 12 to 24 months
> thereafter into a strategic plan." It seems that there will be some overlap
> in the development of the 2016-2017 Annual Plan, and that the completion
> of
> the strategic plan process will come too late to significantly influence
> the AP until after the AP is already being executed. Can you share with us
> which principles are being used to guide the development of the 2016-2017
> Annual Plan which this document [1] is scheduled to be published for
> community review on March 31, 2016?
>

We mentioned this briefly in the FAQ
,
but let me elaborate here:

"We also need to finalize the Foundation’s strategy quickly, so that we can
meet our 2016 Annual Plan deadlines and align our team and department
strategies with the overall strategy."


In other words, we really are waiting on the results of the public
discussion before making our biggest annual plan choices. :) This is part
of why the process is somewhat rushed; if we planned to use *other* principles,
we could have had a multi-month process, but we really do want to use the
outcome of this process to help guide the annual plan, so we do have to
make it a bit tighter than we might otherwise have liked.

We're splitting things up into "core" and "strategic" to help make this
process fit together better: that will allow us to do initial planning on
issues we expect will not be affected by strategy (e.g., "keep servers on")
while waiting for the outcome of the public discussion.

(For those who are curious for more details, I also addressed this somewhat
in my metrics meeting talk

last week, and the question
 at
the end of it.)

Hope that helps answer that question-
Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
*Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:45 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

>
>
> As a huge VE advocate, I was quite disconcerted how hard the WMF was
> trying to force through what was clearly an early beta in need of
> real-world testing as if it were a production-ready product; I think
> this was the problem and the reason for the backlash. VE *now* has had
> a couple of years' development in a real-world environment and is
> really quite excellent (and the only sensible way to edit tables). But
> the problem here was not fear of change or fear of technology, but
> rejecting technology that was being forced on editors when it was
> really obviously not up to the job as yet.
>
>
> - d.
>

This.  David and Risker say it well.  From my position, as the guy
responsible for the team that was worried about the non-technical aspects
of the rollout,  I think I'm safe​

​in saying that the root cause was a lack of a clearly articulated minimum
viable product. From the WMF developers' POV, "Hey!  it does half of what
you need!" was a pretty substantial win at the time.  From the POV of a
random editor, "Hey!  it only does //half// of what I need" was pretty
damning criticism.

I own part of the blame for that rollout. I wish I'd pushed back harder.
In my own defense, the team that had to articulate these changes and manage
the social roll out (which formed the corpus of the Community Engagement
(Product) team today)​ was hired about 11 minutes before the roll-out.  We
didn't have much of a chance to have direct influence.  And I don't think
we really knew how many editing errors would be introduced - I don't think
that anyone expected that, and until we got it up to scale, we wouldn't
have seen that, necessarily.

The real flaw was the failure to agree with the editing community on what
the minimum viable product was.  I'm pleased to say that the WMF learned a
lot from that experience, and by the time I left, we had moved on to making
a whole new set of mistakes

But yeah, what David and Risker said.

pb

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



-- 


Philippe Beaudette

phili...@beaudette.me
415-275-1424
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikidata-william-anthony-phd.html

That blog post doesnt appear link to the Wikidata item.

It is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21745493

which only has 14 facts, but only one reference.

It really should have a fact that he is a Professor Emeritus, as that
is a very significant fact.

Of the 11 awards list on
http://cpr.bu.edu/about/directory/william-anthony, only 4 have been
added to Wikidata.

Distinguished Service Award of the President of the United States
looks quite important, but has been omitted.

My point I guess is this wikidata item is data; not knowledge, yet.
;-)  Until William Anthony is linked into his esteemed place in his
field of excellence, we do him a disservice.  Lots of room for
improvement.

Or, we need all of our ships working together, and most of our
community is moving from quantity to quality, seeing that as our next
big challenge.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

I can second more or less everything what Magnus said, and hope that
the discussion about how to implement software improvements will go on
in a productive way. I totally agree with Magnus and many others that
these improvements are very much necessary - just think of Wikimedia
Commons.

On one point I would like to mention what could be a serious cause for
disagreement between "the Foundation" and "the community" (both aren't
monolithic). Sometimes I experience that paid collaborators of the WMF
or chapters perceive "the community" as a huge workforce, a steerable
resource without limits, that can be made use of.

When the VE was introduced in 2013, some people from the WMF might
have thought: "the community" has unlimited time to clean up the mess
that is temporarily created by the VE. Using that resource is better
than to wait with the introduction, as software development is costly.

But "the community" was unhappy to serve as beta testers and cleaning
personnel, certainly without having been asked.

Adding insult to injury, during the VE introduction of 2013, one WMF
collaborator said on a talk page: Don't forget your resistance is
burning a lot of money. - It is a little strange to tell this to the
people who are creating the income by their volunteer work.

With regard to the Media Viewer, in 2014, my opinion was different:
the MV worked fairly well, serving to readers and to newbies. As long
as I can turn it off (because it is rather slowing down my workflow
than support it) I am happy with it.

Neither "the Foundation", neither "the community" is always right (or
always wrong). It's that simple.

Kind regards
Ziko




















2016-01-19 18:53 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
> As it happens, I now like both VE and Image Viewer as optional features. I
> didn't appreciate how they were deployed.
>
> The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force
> Image VIewer on the communities was arrogant, disproportionate, politically
> unwise, and wasteful. Although WMF has backed off from this position a bit,
> it has never apologized for it AFAIK, and this is one in a number of
> experiences that is informing the community thinking about strategic
> alternatives to WMF.
>
> Let me contrast this with Echo, which had some initial pains but was
> accepted by the community with relative ease. It's still one of my favorite
> features, and I look forward to its continued development.
>
> Piine
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test
>> environment, and test your product against reality."
>>
>> Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released.
>> Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw
>> it out, in the end. The squealing Ludites don't have the numbers for that.
>> When the sensible majority starts squealing, the developers really need to
>> pay attention.
>>
>> I didn't follow it carefully but it seemed to me the release of the Image
>> Viewer was much better timed and handled. Ludites squealed but genuine
>> concerns were addressed promptly and respectfully.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Pine W]

As it happens, I now like both VE and Image Viewer as optional features. I
didn't appreciate how they were deployed.

The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force
Image VIewer on the communities was arrogant, disproportionate, politically
unwise, and wasteful. Although WMF has backed off from this position a bit,
it has never apologized for it AFAIK, and this is one in a number of
experiences that is informing the community thinking about strategic
alternatives to WMF.

Let me contrast this with Echo, which had some initial pains but was
accepted by the community with relative ease. It's still one of my favorite
features, and I look forward to its continued development.

Piine

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test
> environment, and test your product against reality."
>
> Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released.
> Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw
> it out, in the end. The squealing Ludites don't have the numbers for that.
> When the sensible majority starts squealing, the developers really need to
> pay attention.
>
> I didn't follow it carefully but it seemed to me the release of the Image
> Viewer was much better timed and handled. Ludites squealed but genuine
> concerns were addressed promptly and respectfully.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anna Stillwell]

Informative discussion. Thank you all. I knew the history here, but seeing
it come alive from these various perspectives further clarified that
history for me.

Thank you.
/a

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test
> environment, and test your product against reality."
>
> Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released.
> Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw
> it out, in the end. The squealing Ludites don't have the numbers for that.
> When the sensible majority starts squealing, the developers really need to
> pay attention.
>
> I didn't follow it carefully but it seemed to me the release of the Image
> Viewer was much better timed and handled. Ludites squealed but genuine
> concerns were addressed promptly and respectfully.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual
> > > Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal
> groups
> > of
> > > editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent
> > change.
> > > For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change
> > > anything?"
> > >
> > > Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups.
> > >
> > > But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them.
> >
> >
> > Because they are the problem, and they (by being vocal) often get more
> > attention than a more silent, sensible majority. But by getting
> attention,
> > they shape the general consensus, in a negative way.
> >
> >
> > > You don't take
> > > into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were
> > hanging
> > > out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the
> > > developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more
> > > superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change.
> > >
> >
> > I am not going to get into a who-said-what-to-whom-in-what-tone
> discussion
> > here. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers didn't bother to
> > differentiate between sensible feedback and nay-sayers. As I have said in
> > this mail thread, I hope the Foundation has learned how to deal with
> > feedback more sensibly.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was
> far
> > > worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been
> bounced
> > > back from the community to the developers even if that first group of
> > > bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word.
> > >
> >
> > Consider this perspective: I doubt the developers would have pushed out
> > that first version if it had massively failed their own tests. But at
> some
> > point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product
> > against reality. Remember, WMF is not Microsoft, with an army of
> thousands
> > of paid beta-testers.
> >
> > So then it turns out there are more (and more really bad) bugs than
> > anticipated. Then you go and fix those bugs. Which is what they did. But
> > turning a major endeavour on and off repeatedly is just a bad thing to
> do.
> > AFICT the window where wrong edits were made by VE was not /that/ large.
> > Apparently, the decision was made to "power through it", rather than flip
> > the switch repeatedly. That may or may not have been the right strategy.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia,
> > yet
> > > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What
> > are
> > > we waiting for?
> > >
> >
> > This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now
> > makes it much harder to get a good product deployed.
> >
> > But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A
> couple
> > > of
> > > > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > > > persisting with your idée fixe.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial
> complaints
> > > > from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the
> > > first
> > > > version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The documentary film of Wikimedia Argentina now available. Happy birthday Wikipedia!

[Vira Motorko]

Will someone Spanish-speaking write down Spanish subtitles as well? It
would be great!
Do it here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/TimedText:Soy_Wikipedista.webm.es.srt


My deepest thanks =)

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Magnus, regarding, "...at some point, you have to leave the test
environment, and test your product against reality."

Of course. But VE was far, far too bad for real time when it was released.
Really. It was driving newbies away. The sensible embracers-of-change threw
it out, in the end. The squealing Ludites don't have the numbers for that.
When the sensible majority starts squealing, the developers really need to
pay attention.

I didn't follow it carefully but it seemed to me the release of the Image
Viewer was much better timed and handled. Ludites squealed but genuine
concerns were addressed promptly and respectfully.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Magnus Manske  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual
> > Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups
> of
> > editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent
> change.
> > For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change
> > anything?"
> >
> > Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups.
> >
> > But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them.
>
>
> Because they are the problem, and they (by being vocal) often get more
> attention than a more silent, sensible majority. But by getting attention,
> they shape the general consensus, in a negative way.
>
>
> > You don't take
> > into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were
> hanging
> > out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the
> > developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more
> > superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change.
> >
>
> I am not going to get into a who-said-what-to-whom-in-what-tone discussion
> here. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers didn't bother to
> differentiate between sensible feedback and nay-sayers. As I have said in
> this mail thread, I hope the Foundation has learned how to deal with
> feedback more sensibly.
>
>
> >
> > The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was far
> > worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been bounced
> > back from the community to the developers even if that first group of
> > bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word.
> >
>
> Consider this perspective: I doubt the developers would have pushed out
> that first version if it had massively failed their own tests. But at some
> point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product
> against reality. Remember, WMF is not Microsoft, with an army of thousands
> of paid beta-testers.
>
> So then it turns out there are more (and more really bad) bugs than
> anticipated. Then you go and fix those bugs. Which is what they did. But
> turning a major endeavour on and off repeatedly is just a bad thing to do.
> AFICT the window where wrong edits were made by VE was not /that/ large.
> Apparently, the decision was made to "power through it", rather than flip
> the switch repeatedly. That may or may not have been the right strategy.
>
>
> >
> > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia,
> yet
> > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What
> are
> > we waiting for?
> >
>
> This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now
> makes it much harder to get a good product deployed.
>
> But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for?
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> > of
> > > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > > persisting with your idée fixe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints
> > > from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the
> > first
> > > version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Excellent. Seems funny it's not the default for IPs.



Anthony Cole


On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia,
> > yet
> > > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What
> > are
> > > we waiting for?
> > >
> >
> > This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now
> > makes it much harder to get a good product deployed.
> >
> > But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for?
> >
>
> Folks, it is ON by default in English Wikipedia for new users who are
> logged in. But not for anons.
>
> At the top of the articles now: "Read - Edit source - Edit - View History”
>
> This was turned on late last year as a default for new users, to the
> delight of those who do GLAM training and edit-a-thons.
>
> -Andrew
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andrew Lih]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Magnus Manske  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia,
> yet
> > above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What
> are
> > we waiting for?
> >
>
> This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now
> makes it much harder to get a good product deployed.
>
> But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for?
>

Folks, it is ON by default in English Wikipedia for new users who are
logged in. But not for anons.

At the top of the articles now: "Read - Edit source - Edit - View History”

This was turned on late last year as a default for new users, to the
delight of those who do GLAM training and edit-a-thons.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Better thankspam

[Luis Villa]

Mozilla and OKFN are both using it with solid success.

Anyone have (other, smaller) lists they might volunteer to experiment with 
first, assuming I can convince engineering (or maybe Discourse.com) to host 
an instance?

Luis 

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:

> My experiences with discourse in a non-Wikimedia context is great.  Worth 
> a try.
>
> Alice.
>
> - Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
> Von: "Samuel Klein" 
> Gesendet: ‎15.‎01.‎2016 02:46
> An: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Better thankspam
>
> On Jan 14, 2016 8:35 PM, "Luis Villa"  wrote:
> >
> > I agree that thankspam is somewhat irritating, but it is also a good way
> to
> > make people feel welcome and appreciated. An alternative is to consider
> > moving wikimedia-l to a tool like discourse.org
>
> Thanks for that idea. Discourse looks great.  Maybe worth testing out
> casually for some wiki* discussions before deciding whether or not to try
> replacing a particular list.
>
> Sj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
>



-- 
Luis Villa
Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
*Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share 
in the sum of all knowledge.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Magnus Manske]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual
> Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of
> editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change.
> For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change
> anything?"
>
> Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups.
>
> But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them.


Because they are the problem, and they (by being vocal) often get more
attention than a more silent, sensible majority. But by getting attention,
they shape the general consensus, in a negative way.


> You don't take
> into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were hanging
> out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the
> developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more
> superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change.
>

I am not going to get into a who-said-what-to-whom-in-what-tone discussion
here. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers didn't bother to
differentiate between sensible feedback and nay-sayers. As I have said in
this mail thread, I hope the Foundation has learned how to deal with
feedback more sensibly.


>
> The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was far
> worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been bounced
> back from the community to the developers even if that first group of
> bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word.
>

Consider this perspective: I doubt the developers would have pushed out
that first version if it had massively failed their own tests. But at some
point, you have to leave the test environment, and test your product
against reality. Remember, WMF is not Microsoft, with an army of thousands
of paid beta-testers.

So then it turns out there are more (and more really bad) bugs than
anticipated. Then you go and fix those bugs. Which is what they did. But
turning a major endeavour on and off repeatedly is just a bad thing to do.
AFICT the window where wrong edits were made by VE was not /that/ large.
Apparently, the decision was made to "power through it", rather than flip
the switch repeatedly. That may or may not have been the right strategy.


>
> I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia, yet
> above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What are
> we waiting for?
>

This is the thing. The atmosphere has been poisoned against VE, which now
makes it much harder to get a good product deployed.

But I agree with the sentiment. What ARE we waiting for?

Cheers,
Magnus


>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple
> of
> > > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > > persisting with your idée fixe.
> > >
> >
> > To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints
> > from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the
> first
> > version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Call for nominations! Steward Elections 2016

[Shanmugam Pachamuthu]

Hello everyone,

I am pleased to announce the Steward Elections 2016 [1]. We are now taking
nominations from eligible candidates. Interested candidates can check their
eligibility and procedure to submit the nomination on the guidelines page
[2]. We are open to candidate submissions till January 28, 2016, 23:59
(UTC). Questions to the candidates can be submitted until February 6, 2016,
23:59 (UTC). Guidelines about questioning can also be found on our
guidelines page [2].

As always, the confirmation of existing stewards [3] will take place at the
same time as the election, which begins on February 8, and will finish on
February 27, 2016.

Please remember, the voting has not yet begun and will be not until
February 8, 2016, 00:00 (UTC). We will poke you once again when the voting
starts.

As you all know steward elections are a global event, so we need help from
volunteers to translate necessary pages into languages they speak. For
those who want to help us out with translation, please see our translation
portal [4]. And if you have any queries related to translation or anything
related to the election, you can ask us on the talk page [5]. Alternatively
you are free to poke us in the freenode IRC channel
#wikimedia-stewards-elections.


Please feel free to forward this e-mail to any list if you think it will be
useful.

Regards,
Shanmugam Pachamuthu

(On behalf of the Election Committee.)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections_2016
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections_2016/Guidelines
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Confirm/2016
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections_2016/Coordination#Translations
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/Elections_2016
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Magnus, in the interview you said "From the Media Viewer, the Visual
Editor, to Wikidata transclusion, all have been resisted by vocal groups of
editors, not because they are a problem, but because they represent change.
For these editors, the site has worked fine for years; why change anything?"

Well, yes. No one here, I'm sure, will argue there aren't such groups.

But the problem with the blog post is you only mention them. You don't take
into account the very much larger crowd, including myself, who were hanging
out for the visual editor and were contemptuously flicked off by the
developers when we brought up fatal flaws, as just some more
superconservative no-vision Ludites - haters of change.

The first version of VE was so bad it was harming our mission. It was far
worse than "didn't do everything 100% right." It would have been bounced
back from the community to the developers even if that first group of
bitter, change-hating autistic ranters hadn't said a word.

I notice VE isn't even an option when I log out and edit en.Wikipedia, yet
above others are saying it is much improved and ready for release. What are
we waiting for?



Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> > people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> > persisting with your idée fixe.
> >
>
> To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints
> from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the first
> version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] A page about new editors in different projects

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

In the Hebrew Wikipedia there's a page [1] that highlights editors who
recently became active - shows a short interview with them and welcomes
them to the community in a nice way.

It's not so much a help and a support page like English Wikipedia, but more
like a newsletter or a blog that describes newcomers, in a form of an
regularly updating wiki page.

Is there anything like that in other projects and languages? (Not
necessarily Wikipedia, of course.)

Thanks!

[1] https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIK

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Mitar  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because
> he is not on the mailing list):
>
> [...]



> There is no requirement for supporting us, but we're quick to
> point out that a company that makes financial gains using our data
> really ought to give something back to us in order for us to keep the
> lights on and improve what we do.
>
> And, this is working!
>


Thanks for sharing this, Mitar (and Rob!). It's an interesting approach.

We generally approach private donors with an argument that boils down to
"if Wikipedia is useful to you, give something back to keep it going and
growing".

The same argument surely applies to corporate donors. If Wikipedia is
useful to them, they too should give something back, no strings attached.
There is no need for large corporate donors to style themselves -- or be
styled by us -- as "philanthropists" if they give $100,000, any more than
the small donor who gives $15 thereby imagines they are becoming a
philanthropist. It's just an aspect of good citizenship, right?

Are we seeing corporates contributing in that spirit? I'm not sure we are.
And if we're not, then this can indeed be framed as a moral issue, along
the lines of what Rob, as I understand him, suggests in his mail.

Now, for such a moral argument to gain traction, the public at large needs
to understand who profits financially from our work. If -- and only if --
the general public understand that, then it will become a PR problem for a
major company to be seen to benefit financially from a volunteer effort,
without giving anything back.

So perhaps there is work to be done here to build wider awareness of the
income streams that are based on Wikimedia content. Ultimately, providing
such information is also consistent with the movement's goal of
transparency.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Andrew Lih]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> persisting with your idée fixe.
>

To be fair, Magnus was addressing more than just the initial complaints
from 2013. He said, “condemning an entire product forever because the first
version didn’t do everything 100% right is just plain stupid.”
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Magnus Manske]

Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this thread. I
have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do well
remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite up
to the job.

What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen time
and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.

It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.

It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> persisting with your idée fixe.
>
> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies.
> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It
> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>
> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of
> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.
>
> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
> fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>
> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent
> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is
> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over
> at WikiData.
>
> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an
> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or
> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish
> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions
> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF staffers
> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.
>
> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and your
> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual editor
> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time. We
> do
> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we
> can
> > present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a
> success
> > for us.
> >
> > I do stand by my example :-)
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> > enthusiastic. I
> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle new
> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality, but
> > > > working smoothly first.
> > >
> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to make
> > > here. :-/
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
persisting with your idée fixe.

There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not newbies.
Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit. It
was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.

The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But then most of
the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community arrogantly
characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an ignorant,
selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that characterisation now.

The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and they have
fostered a much healthier relationship between the developers and the
community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.

In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in the concurrent
thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from Denny in
earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems to me there is
still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing, at least over
at WikiData.

Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even insultingly, about an
innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking down to them or
ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you can't distinguish
them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and well-founded
criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your technical solutions
are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than those WMF staffers
who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career move.

Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his project, and your
contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early visual editor
and its launch are both very disappointing.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do the basic
> functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the same time. We do
> not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our product. If we can
> present the product in such a way that more people use it, it is a success
> for us.
>
> I do stand by my example :-)
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be overly
> enthusiastic. I
> > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better how to handle new
> > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic functionality, but
> > > working smoothly first.
> >
> > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good example to make
> > here. :-/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

[Peter Southwood]

Thanks,
I have no opinion on this one.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 12:49 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of 
Magnus Manske

Hoi,
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikidata-william-anthony-phd.html
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 19 January 2016 at 10:35, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Which William Anthony?
> There is an article on Wikipedia about one of them.
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 10:39 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: 
> Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> Hoi,
> You do not offend but worse you do not convince because your arguments 
> fail. What we have always done is "share in the sum of all knowledge" 
> and to you that is wrong. You use gobbledygook like "techbubble" and 
> your vision is one of community. Fine. You do not define community in 
> any other way and leave me with a sense of "so?".
>
> Wikipedia is our flagship. But Wikimedia is a fleet. With only a 
> flagship we are a one-trick-pony and we are about more than 
> encyclopaedic trivia about whatever there is to know about Elvis 
> Presley. To me it is telling that there is no article about William 
> Anthony. You will find him now in Wikidata and if you care to know why 
> Mr Anthony is notable you may google him.
>
> Our fleet consists of types of vessels that each have their own 
> purpose in our plight to bring the sum of all knowledge to the world. 
> When Wikipedia is all we do, we do a miserable job. A miserable job 
> because we do not even share in the sum of knowledge available to us.
>
> If reach is what our concern is, we should consider how to increase 
> our reach and place the ships in the most advantageous position in 
> order to provide more information so that people can gain the 
> knowledge by integrating what they know with what we offer.
>
> So far we do a piss poor job at marketing our knowledge and it is 
> because we are not concerned with sharing in the sum of all knowledge, 
> most of us are only concerned with Wikipedia and that is a castle and 
> the trade routes are moving elsewhere.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 18 January 2016 at 22:37, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
> >
> > I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your 
> > mail about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
> >
> > When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the 
> > feeling you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the 
> > future with all the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. 
> > Same goes for the "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody 
> > in this mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard 
> > analogies.
> >
> >
> > So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free
> knowledge.
> > Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole 
> > strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And 
> > assuming that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects 
> > knowledge the more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
> >
> > Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit 
> > the Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is 
> > *the *characteristic feature of an encylopedia in general and 
> > Wikipedia in special that you can discover more knowledge about 
> > Elvis even without asking or even knowing that you wanna know more about 
> > Elvis.
> >
> > Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus 
> > culture, plus personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the 
> > same article has different arrangements in different languages. 
> > That's why it is not only about the facts, but also about the 
> > overview of the possible classifications around the facts a good article is 
> > presenting.
> >
> > Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts 
> > with a Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we 
> > disseminate free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit 
> > that comes from the idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the 
> > machine. Knowledge is in the people. Without the (editing, 
> > programming, linking) people as an integral part of the 
> > "dissemination procedure" the mission isn't the mission of Wikipedia.
> >
> > This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the 
> > recent trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely 
> > not "conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
> > It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikidata-william-anthony-phd.html
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 19 January 2016 at 10:35, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Which William Anthony?
> There is an article on Wikipedia about one of them.
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 10:39 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile
> of Magnus Manske
>
> Hoi,
> You do not offend but worse you do not convince because your arguments
> fail. What we have always done is "share in the sum of all knowledge" and
> to you that is wrong. You use gobbledygook like "techbubble" and your
> vision is one of community. Fine. You do not define community in any other
> way and leave me with a sense of "so?".
>
> Wikipedia is our flagship. But Wikimedia is a fleet. With only a flagship
> we are a one-trick-pony and we are about more than encyclopaedic trivia
> about whatever there is to know about Elvis Presley. To me it is telling
> that there is no article about William Anthony. You will find him now in
> Wikidata and if you care to know why Mr Anthony is notable you may google
> him.
>
> Our fleet consists of types of vessels that each have their own purpose in
> our plight to bring the sum of all knowledge to the world. When Wikipedia
> is all we do, we do a miserable job. A miserable job because we do not even
> share in the sum of knowledge available to us.
>
> If reach is what our concern is, we should consider how to increase our
> reach and place the ships in the most advantageous position in order to
> provide more information so that people can gain the knowledge by
> integrating what they know with what we offer.
>
> So far we do a piss poor job at marketing our knowledge and it is because
> we are not concerned with sharing in the sum of all knowledge, most of us
> are only concerned with Wikipedia and that is a castle and the trade routes
> are moving elsewhere.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 18 January 2016 at 22:37, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
> >
> > I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your
> > mail about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
> >
> > When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the
> > feeling you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the
> > future with all the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. Same
> > goes for the "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody in this
> > mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard analogies.
> >
> >
> > So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free
> knowledge.
> > Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole
> > strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And
> > assuming that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects
> > knowledge the more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
> >
> > Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit the
> > Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is *the
> > *characteristic feature of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in
> > special that you can discover more knowledge about Elvis even without
> > asking or even knowing that you wanna know more about Elvis.
> >
> > Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus culture,
> > plus personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the same article
> > has different arrangements in different languages. That's why it is
> > not only about the facts, but also about the overview of the possible
> > classifications around the facts a good article is presenting.
> >
> > Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts with
> > a Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we
> > disseminate free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit
> > that comes from the idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the
> > machine. Knowledge is in the people. Without the (editing,
> > programming, linking) people as an integral part of the "dissemination
> > procedure" the mission isn't the mission of Wikipedia.
> >
> > This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the recent
> > trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely not
> > "conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
> > It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than good writing good
> > code, because it is about involving more people in this not so trendy,
> > not so quick'n'dirty, not so infotainmental, mobile app-stylish way of
> > "knowledge dissemination".
> >
> > So the debate is not about castle-building, but about how we together
> > re-shaping the ship called Wiki(pedia) to sail a daily demanding
> > longterm mission and not following every tech

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

[Magnus Manske]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:45 PM Jens Best  wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
> thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
>
> I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your mail
> about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
>
> When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the feeling
> you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the future with all
> the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. Same goes for the
> "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody in this
> mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard analogies.
>
>
> So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free knowledge.
> Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole
> strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And assuming
> that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects knowledge the
> more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
>

Really? So we started with a free license (GFDL) to allow reuse by third
parties, switched to a /different/ free license to make it /even easier/ to
reuse our content, provide APIs without even requiering a login, data
dumps, etc. and that's all wrong, because you say so?

May I point you to https://www.wikimedia.org/ where it says:
"Wikimedia is a global movement whose mission is to bring free educational
content to the world."

Nupedia was a means to an end (an ineefective one, in hindsight). So is
Wikipedia. So are Commons, Wikidata, and all the other projects. They allow
us to create and collect free content. And they are also a way to
disseminate this content, but they are not the only one.

We prefer people to read Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia, because a few of
them will turn into editors, which they cannot do on any other site
(without forking). But as long as a reader gets knowledge from our content,
it does not matter if it is on Wikipedia or on https://www.wikiwand.com/ or
some other site.


>
> Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit the
> Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is *the
> *characteristic
> feature of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in special that you can
> discover more knowledge about Elvis even without asking or even knowing
> that you wanna know more about Elvis.
>
> Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus culture, plus
> personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the same article has
> different arrangements in different languages. That's why it is not only
> about the facts, but also about the overview of the possible
> classifications around the facts a good article is presenting.
>
> Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts with a
> Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we disseminate
> free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit that comes from the
> idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the machine. Knowledge is in the
> people. Without the (editing, programming, linking) people as an integral
> part of the "dissemination procedure" the mission isn't the mission of
> Wikipedia.
>

Again, you obviously have missed the mission statement. I can't see
"editing" anywhere in there. Yes, I would prefer people to read and edit on
Wikipedia. Having at least the /option/ to edit is good; but it is by no
means a requirement to get content to the reader.

I don't know how you come up with "no linking", but I certainly have not
suggested such a thing. Not sure what you mean by "programming" in this
context.

You might also gave glimpsed all the icons on the Wikimedia site that are
/not/ Wikipedia, but still "educational content". We have focused on
Wikipedia since the beginning, and it has become a great thing indeed.
There are others that have vast, as of yet unfulfilled, potential.


>
> This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the recent
> trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely not
> "conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
> It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than good writing good
> code, because it is about involving more people in this not so trendy, not
> so quick'n'dirty, not so infotainmental, mobile app-stylish way of
> "knowledge dissemination".
>

Everyone who has met me in person can confirm that I do not care about
fashion, and that remains true in tech as well. But dissing every new
approach as "trendy" is exactly the attitude that prevents change to the
system. What is that trendy "tech business development" of the printing
press, after all, when compared to beautiful, hand-illuminated manuscripts?
Out with that new "infotainmental" stuff!


>
> So the debate is not about castle-building, but about how we together
> re-shaping the ship called Wiki(pedia) to sail a daily demanding longterm
> mission and not following every techbubble-trends just because "more is
> better".
>

And this paragrap

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Launch of Community Consultation on strategic approaches

[Quim Gil]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> 1. What is the URL for the 2016 consultation?
>

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/2016_Strategy is the
main URL (currently redirects to the consultation page).


-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

[Peter Southwood]

Which William Anthony?
There is an article on Wikipedia about one of them.
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 10:39 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of 
Magnus Manske

Hoi,
You do not offend but worse you do not convince because your arguments fail. 
What we have always done is "share in the sum of all knowledge" and to you that 
is wrong. You use gobbledygook like "techbubble" and your vision is one of 
community. Fine. You do not define community in any other way and leave me with 
a sense of "so?".

Wikipedia is our flagship. But Wikimedia is a fleet. With only a flagship we 
are a one-trick-pony and we are about more than encyclopaedic trivia about 
whatever there is to know about Elvis Presley. To me it is telling that there 
is no article about William Anthony. You will find him now in Wikidata and if 
you care to know why Mr Anthony is notable you may google him.

Our fleet consists of types of vessels that each have their own purpose in our 
plight to bring the sum of all knowledge to the world. When Wikipedia is all we 
do, we do a miserable job. A miserable job because we do not even share in the 
sum of knowledge available to us.

If reach is what our concern is, we should consider how to increase our reach 
and place the ships in the most advantageous position in order to provide more 
information so that people can gain the knowledge by integrating what they know 
with what we offer.

So far we do a piss poor job at marketing our knowledge and it is because we 
are not concerned with sharing in the sum of all knowledge, most of us are only 
concerned with Wikipedia and that is a castle and the trade routes are moving 
elsewhere.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 18 January 2016 at 22:37, Jens Best  wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
> thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
>
> I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your 
> mail about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
>
> When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the 
> feeling you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the 
> future with all the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. Same 
> goes for the "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody in this 
> mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard analogies.
>
>
> So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free knowledge.
> Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole 
> strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And 
> assuming that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects 
> knowledge the more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
>
> Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit the 
> Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is *the 
> *characteristic feature of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in 
> special that you can discover more knowledge about Elvis even without 
> asking or even knowing that you wanna know more about Elvis.
>
> Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus culture, 
> plus personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the same article 
> has different arrangements in different languages. That's why it is 
> not only about the facts, but also about the overview of the possible 
> classifications around the facts a good article is presenting.
>
> Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts with 
> a Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we 
> disseminate free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit 
> that comes from the idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the 
> machine. Knowledge is in the people. Without the (editing, 
> programming, linking) people as an integral part of the "dissemination 
> procedure" the mission isn't the mission of Wikipedia.
>
> This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the recent 
> trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely not 
> "conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
> It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than good writing good 
> code, because it is about involving more people in this not so trendy, 
> not so quick'n'dirty, not so infotainmental, mobile app-stylish way of 
> "knowledge dissemination".
>
> So the debate is not about castle-building, but about how we together 
> re-shaping the ship called Wiki(pedia) to sail a daily demanding 
> longterm mission and not following every techbubble-trends just 
> because "more is better".
>
> I hope that the upcoming strategic debate is as open as it needs to 
> be. A strategic debate which framework is already decided upon would 
> only increase the distance created also by recent events.
>
> I hope this clarifies my POV, and doesn

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You do not offend but worse you do not convince because your arguments
fail. What we have always done is "share in the sum of all knowledge" and
to you that is wrong. You use gobbledygook like "techbubble" and your
vision is one of community. Fine. You do not define community in any other
way and leave me with a sense of "so?".

Wikipedia is our flagship. But Wikimedia is a fleet. With only a flagship
we are a one-trick-pony and we are about more than encyclopaedic trivia
about whatever there is to know about Elvis Presley. To me it is telling
that there is no article about William Anthony. You will find him now in
Wikidata and if you care to know why Mr Anthony is notable you may google
him.

Our fleet consists of types of vessels that each have their own purpose in
our plight to bring the sum of all knowledge to the world. When Wikipedia
is all we do, we do a miserable job. A miserable job because we do not even
share in the sum of knowledge available to us.

If reach is what our concern is, we should consider how to increase our
reach and place the ships in the most advantageous position in order to
provide more information so that people can gain the knowledge by
integrating what they know with what we offer.

So far we do a piss poor job at marketing our knowledge and it is because
we are not concerned with sharing in the sum of all knowledge, most of us
are only concerned with Wikipedia and that is a castle and the trade routes
are moving elsewhere.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 18 January 2016 at 22:37, Jens Best  wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
> thanks for bringing yourself into the discussion.
>
> I agree on several aspects you point out in the first half of your mail
> about improvements, expectations and "prominent subgroups".
>
> When it comes to re-emphasize this "castle"-narrative, I had the feeling
> you wanna connect reasonable ideas of other ways into the future with all
> the nay-sayers you described so detailed before. Same goes for the
> "Wikidata is killing Wikipedia"-statement. Nobody in this
> mailinglist-thread used this word "killing" or similiarly hard analogies.
>
>
> So, what's again is the mission? You say: Dissemination of free knowledge.
> Well, who would disagree on that. Nobody. But wait, isn't the whole
> strategic debate about *HOW *to disseminate free knowledge? And assuming
> that a simple "the more third parties use the Wikiprojects knowledge the
> more we fulfill our mission"-answer is…wrong.
>
> Even if 400 million of the 500 million (or so) readers would visit the
> Wikipedia just to look up the birthday of Elvis Presley, it is *the
> *characteristic
> feature of an encylopedia in general and Wikipedia in special that you can
> discover more knowledge about Elvis even without asking or even knowing
> that you wanna know more about Elvis.
>
> Knowledge unequals information. Knowledge is information plus culture, plus
> personal interests, plus serendipity. That's why the same article has
> different arrangements in different languages. That's why it is not only
> about the facts, but also about the overview of the possible
> classifications around the facts a good article is presenting.
>
> Knowledge is about discovering and not about checking some facts with a
> Q&A-mobile app. So the question is surely not about should we disseminate
> free knowledge, but how can this be done with a spirit that comes from the
> idea of an encyclopedia. Information is in the machine. Knowledge is in the
> people. Without the (editing, programming, linking) people as an integral
> part of the "dissemination procedure" the mission isn't the mission of
> Wikipedia.
>
> This idea might be not that fashionably going together with the recent
> trends in web tech business developments, but it is surely not
> "conservative" or castle-wall-building as some people try to frame it.
> It is also not easy. It is even more complicate than good writing good
> code, because it is about involving more people in this not so trendy, not
> so quick'n'dirty, not so infotainmental, mobile app-stylish way of
> "knowledge dissemination".
>
> So the debate is not about castle-building, but about how we together
> re-shaping the ship called Wiki(pedia) to sail a daily demanding longterm
> mission and not following every techbubble-trends just because "more is
> better".
>
> I hope that the upcoming strategic debate is as open as it needs to be. A
> strategic debate which framework is already decided upon would only
> increase the distance created also by recent events.
>
> I hope this clarifies my POV, and doesn't offend too many people ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Jens Best
>
>
>
> 2016-01-18 21:33 GMT+01:00 Magnus Manske :
>
> > OK, long thread, I'll try to answer in one here...
> >
> > * I've been writing code for over thirty years now, so I'm the first to
> say
> > that technology in not "the" answer to social or structural issues. It
> can,
> > however, mitigate some of those issues, or at least show new ways of
>