Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[Dan Garry]

On Monday, 8 September 2014, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Hi Dam, thanks for your responses.  If the Wikipedia app doesnt have
> Commons upload capabilities, what is the viable replacement app for
> Commons uploading?


As I'm sure you're aware, if we were to sunset the Commons app then there
wouldn't be a replacement.

I would suggest reading mobile-l to see the rationale behind the proposal.
I won't repeat it here to avoid duplication of the conversation.

Thanks,
Dan


-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Dan Garry  wrote:
> Thanks to all in this thread for raising these issues.
>
> A discussion about sunsetting the Commons Android app is ongoing on
> mobile-l right now. I would encourage anyone who's interested to subscribe
> and comment.

Hi Dam, thanks for your responses.  If the Wikipedia app doesnt have
Commons upload capabilities, what is the viable replacement app for
Commons uploading?

--
John Vandenberg

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

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

[Erik Moeller]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> - Gabriel Wicke has done some experimentation with this as well, and
> is looking if he can dig up the old code for me.

Very old indeed, but if anyone wants to take a look:
https://github.com/gwicke/wikiforum


-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

As an experienced user, the Commons app is tremendously useful (when it
doesn't crash). But as a Commons curator, I see a steady stream of "test
uploads" and the like -- things that are utterly and completely unrelated
to our educational mission -- that require a great deal of volunteer
resources to process. The vast majority are tagged as mobile uploads.

The Commons app gives the user absolutely no idea what Commons is about, or
what kind of uploads are desirable. I think that is significant. The
UploadWizard on the desktop version of Commons starts off with a cartoon
explaining issues like copyright and personality rights, and then guides
the user through related questions. Although I have not done a formal
analysis, it seems to be overwhelmingly the case that files originating
from Mobile uploads are much more often problematic than those originating
from the Upload Wizard. I don't think that's a coincidence.

It would be really awesome to have the ability for experienced users to use
our devices to upload directly -- and even better if it opens doors to new
contributors *in a way that meaningfully guides their participation*. But
if new contributors are given no guidance, and unknowingly do stuff that
puts a high load on our volunteer curators -- is that cost too high?

I hope that kind of improvement is part of the discussion. Personally, I'd
rather see a revamped app, than that the app just disappears.

Pete

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:41 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> > Yann,
> >
> > The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth
> advertising
> > as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets
> > in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in with an
> > account  that has pre-existing uploads, which it tries to display for
> > convenience but quickly chokes on). With the small app team we have, our
> > focus is mainly on the official Wikipedia apps right now, which are
> already
> > quite solid and receiving very positive reviews, esp. the Android app.
> [1]
> > The team is discussing whether the Commons app should be sunset (which
> > would still leave open the option of community maintainership) based on
> the
> > numbers, and will be posting an update later this week.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> The Wikipedia app description includes "Share: Use your existing
> social networking apps to share in the sum of all human knowledge."
>
> Does it support uploading media to Commons?
> Does it fix the problems with the official Commons app?
> If so, can they share a library which would allow the Commons app to
> be more of a specialised front-end to the same functionality that the
> WMF mobile apps team are developing for Wikipedia?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[Dan Garry]

John,

Responses in-line.

On 8 September 2014 18:41, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> The Wikipedia app description includes "Share: Use your existing
> social networking apps to share in the sum of all human knowledge."
>

This refers to the Share functionality which is in the overflow menu.
That's kind of functionality is built-in to Android and is super easy to
implement.


> Does it support uploading media to Commons?
>

No. It's in our longer-term plans for the Wikipedia app to do so, but that
feature is not planned for any time soon.


> Does it fix the problems with the official Commons app?
>

No, but it's not intended to right now, per the above.

If so, can they share a library which would allow the Commons app to
> be more of a specialised front-end to the same functionality that the
> WMF mobile apps team are developing for Wikipedia?
>

All of our code is open source and freely licensed, so anything that we're
using is already publicly available and free to use and could be adapted to
the Commons app.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[Dan Garry]

Thanks to all in this thread for raising these issues.

A discussion about sunsetting the Commons Android app is ongoing on
mobile-l right now. I would encourage anyone who's interested to subscribe
and comment.

Thanks,
Dan

On 8 September 2014 18:30, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Yann,
>
> The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth advertising
> as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets
> in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in with an
> account  that has pre-existing uploads, which it tries to display for
> convenience but quickly chokes on). With the small app team we have, our
> focus is mainly on the official Wikipedia apps right now, which are already
> quite solid and receiving very positive reviews, esp. the Android app. [1]
> The team is discussing whether the Commons app should be sunset (which
> would still leave open the option of community maintainership) based on the
> numbers, and will be posting an update later this week.
>
> Erik
>
> [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Erik Moeller]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> As I wrote to Risker, I think it's worth considering spending some
> development time on turning something like the Teahouse gadget (which
> allows one click insertion of replies on the Teahouse Q/A page) into a
> Beta Feature after some further improvement, to see just how useful it
> could be for the common case. If there's an 80/20 rule and in 20% of
> cases it just gives up and edits the section, that might still be a
> time-saver and convenience. There might even be other relevant gadgets
> already in some languages/projects -- worth a closer look, for sure.

I'm talking about this with the Flow team, but I also want to be
conscious of their focus and energy. One possibility is to contract
this out to an individual dev to test out the boundaries of what can
be done in JavaScript alone -- and make recommendations for any
mediawiki/core changes that could help. Since a JS opt-in script can
be quickly developed by anyone with talent and motivation there's
really no barrier to trying this.

If anyone's reading feels they're qualified to take this on and would
be interested doing it on a contract, drop me a line offlist.
Obviously it's also a great opportunity for volunteer experimentation,
as well. I think at this stage we should consider this a research
effort.

There is some pre-existing work on this, beyond the Teahouse gadget.

- Mobile web has a very experimental "reply" feature on talk pages
right now. It doesn't handle the indentation levels, as far as I can
tell - it just inserts a new top-level comment. You can turn this on
by 1) enabling beta, 2) enabling alpha, 3) logging in, 4) going to a
talk page, 5) going to a section. That's a lot of steps, but since
it's so experimental that's probably for the best :-)

- Gabriel Wicke has done some experimentation with this as well, and
is looking if he can dig up the old code for me.

If others are aware of relevant hacks/gadgets/user srcipts, please let me know.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> Yann,
>
> The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth advertising
> as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets
> in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in with an
> account  that has pre-existing uploads, which it tries to display for
> convenience but quickly chokes on). With the small app team we have, our
> focus is mainly on the official Wikipedia apps right now, which are already
> quite solid and receiving very positive reviews, esp. the Android app. [1]
> The team is discussing whether the Commons app should be sunset (which
> would still leave open the option of community maintainership) based on the
> numbers, and will be posting an update later this week.
>
> Erik
>
> [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia

Hi Erik,

The Wikipedia app description includes "Share: Use your existing
social networking apps to share in the sum of all human knowledge."

Does it support uploading media to Commons?
Does it fix the problems with the official Commons app?
If so, can they share a library which would allow the Commons app to
be more of a specialised front-end to the same functionality that the
WMF mobile apps team are developing for Wikipedia?

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

[Erik Moeller]

Yann,

The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth advertising
as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets
in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in with an
account  that has pre-existing uploads, which it tries to display for
convenience but quickly chokes on). With the small app team we have, our
focus is mainly on the official Wikipedia apps right now, which are already
quite solid and receiving very positive reviews, esp. the Android app. [1]
The team is discussing whether the Commons app should be sunset (which
would still leave open the option of community maintainership) based on the
numbers, and will be posting an update later this week.

Erik

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where should we organize ideas for the Strategic Plan update?

[Lila Tretikov]

We are planning to open a few pages for comments as we plan for this to be
an iterative, participatory process from the ground. Let us know if you'd
like to participate in setting up the pages themselves.

L


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> SJ, OK, currently we have mostly the 2010-15 strategy and chapter
> strategies featured on [[m:strategy]], and some 2015+ strategy on
> [[m:strategy project]]. I could reorganize these pages, but given the
> highly visible nature of those pages to internal and external stakeholders
> in the Strategy update, I would feel more comfortable reorganizing those
> pages after discussing the design with WMF Communications or someone from
> the Board in more detail. I'd be happy to have WMF Communications work on
> this anyway because it might take a few hours to do a good job with the
> redesign, and Communications might also be good to involve in the design of
> templates for strategy pages.
>
> Katherine, would it be possible to set up a time with you or someone from
> your team to discuss the organization of those pages? Please contact me
> off-list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > How about a category on Meta with a set of infobox templates like those
> on
> > the strategy wiki?  With a summary kept updated at [[m:strategy]]
> > On Sep 5, 2014 5:03 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
> >
> > > Heh. That was not my first time when I started typing my email address
> > and
> > > instead Gmail autofilled wikimedia-l. This is what I get for choosing
> > > wiki.pine instead of pine.wiki. I need some coffee or more sleep.
> > >
> > > Anyway, this is what was supposed to go to Wikimedia-l:
> > >
> > > Do we have a central place for collecting ideas relevant to the
> strategic
> > > plan update? I suppose we could use Idealab but a dedicated space on
> Meta
> > > might be easier for everyone in the long run, or we could re-open the
> > > Strategy wiki.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where should we organize ideas for the Strategic Plan update?

[Pine W]

SJ, OK, currently we have mostly the 2010-15 strategy and chapter
strategies featured on [[m:strategy]], and some 2015+ strategy on
[[m:strategy project]]. I could reorganize these pages, but given the
highly visible nature of those pages to internal and external stakeholders
in the Strategy update, I would feel more comfortable reorganizing those
pages after discussing the design with WMF Communications or someone from
the Board in more detail. I'd be happy to have WMF Communications work on
this anyway because it might take a few hours to do a good job with the
redesign, and Communications might also be good to involve in the design of
templates for strategy pages.

Katherine, would it be possible to set up a time with you or someone from
your team to discuss the organization of those pages? Please contact me
off-list.

Thanks,

Pine

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> How about a category on Meta with a set of infobox templates like those on
> the strategy wiki?  With a summary kept updated at [[m:strategy]]
> On Sep 5, 2014 5:03 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
> > Heh. That was not my first time when I started typing my email address
> and
> > instead Gmail autofilled wikimedia-l. This is what I get for choosing
> > wiki.pine instead of pine.wiki. I need some coffee or more sleep.
> >
> > Anyway, this is what was supposed to go to Wikimedia-l:
> >
> > Do we have a central place for collecting ideas relevant to the strategic
> > plan update? I suppose we could use Idealab but a dedicated space on Meta
> > might be easier for everyone in the long run, or we could re-open the
> > Strategy wiki.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[WereSpielChequers]

Responding to two comments. Firstly Risker " Newbies have an equally hard time
> 
> editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
> very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
> to a good faith attempt.  There is no evidentiary basis to demonstrate that
> new users have a harder time participating in discussion than they do in
> content contribution."

I would go further, reverting newbie edits to talk pages is rare. They may 
occasionally need help with indentation or signing, and if they edit a busy 
page they may get edit conflicts. But unlike in main space actual reversion is 
rare. We do need some system to identify newbie queries that have been left 
longest, as queries on article talk pages can linger for a very long time. But 
we should not treat the need for improvements on talk pages as being as 
pressing as the need to improve the experience for newbies in main space. V/E 
will help a little there, though not till it is ready to be deployed. But there 
are bigger problems, the amount of edit conflicts suffered by the creators of 
new articles and the ongoing train wreck with some of the regulars working to 
the unwritten rule that everything must be verified, while the system doesn't 
even prompt newbies to add a source.

Re Erik's comment "I'm open to us putting some short term effort into talk
> 
>> page improvements that can be made without Flow -- knowing it's still
>> some time out."

That would be great, there are various Won't fix bugs on Bugzilla that should 
be easy to fix. Setting : # and * as paragraph delimiters as far as edit 
conflicts are concerned should resolve a lot of the edit conflicts in talk 
space. Really low hanging fruit.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> 

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

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

[Risker]

Facebook?

So tell me, how do you explain to new Facebook users about the different
levels of "privacy"?  Seems to me that I'm constantly hearing about people
having a lot of problems with that, especially since it's supposed to be a
key site feature.

I'm with you about indenting, it's always been something strange.  But
signing posts is very natural for a lot of people, and many, many online
sites encourage the development of "canned signature lines" - just as we do
with preferences, although we put more constraints on them generally.

Indeed, the majority of people in this thread have signed their posts.
Indeed, Jon Davies' "+1" in response to this post had a 588-character
signature line, presumably added to his mail client preferences.


Risker/Anne



On 8 September 2014 11:43, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
> Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
>
> b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
> system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorry to use this
> word, *ridiculous* that you have to teach people how to communicate
> technically in Wikipedia. I never had to explain to someone how to do that
> on Facebook...
>
> As other people have pointed it out already, if you are already accustomed
> to the Wikipedia user interface for a longer time, you might find it
> difficult to fully understand what is the problem for newbies. And how big
> this is a problem, and how important it is to solve this problem.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Am Montag, 8. September 2014 schrieb Risker :
>
> > Well, I think that the "article editing" project (i.e., VE)  has a huge
> > potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues.  I don't
> see
> > tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
> > or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
> > such wildly divergent interfaces (one very flexible and the other very
> > rigid in structure), except perhaps in the mobile vs. desktop situation.
> >
> > I dunno, Marc.  There are different expectations about signature,
> depending
> > on the target group.  We still have people being freaked out that article
> > histories contain their username or IP (a form of automatic signature),
> so
> > I'm not convinced that there's an expectation on the part of new users
> that
> > anything they write anywhere will automatically be signed.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> >
> > On 8 September 2014 10:24, Marc A. Pelletier  > > wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
> > > > The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
> > > > something that we have technically been able to impose for years;
> > sinebot
> > > > didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
> > >
> > > I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
> > > sinebot even needs to exist to me is demonstration that the system is
> > > broken.
> > >
> > > You say that discussion isn't all that much harder than editing
> content.
> > >  Even if I agreed with that (and I do not, edit conflicts in articles
> > > are much rarer than on talk pages - and usually easier to sort out),
> > > that's not a *good* thing!
> > >
> > > Participating in discussion should be much, *much* easier than editing
> > > articles: encouraging newbies to seek help and participate in the
> > > community *before* diving in anything but trivial article edits would
> be
> > > an immensely powerful retention tool!
> > >
> > > (Which isn't to say that editing articles doesn't *also* need a lot of
> > > help - but that's a different project).
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-

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

[Jon Davies]

+1

On 8 September 2014 16:43, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
> Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
>
> b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
> system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorry to use this
> word, *ridiculous* that you have to teach people how to communicate
> technically in Wikipedia. I never had to explain to someone how to do that
> on Facebook...
>
> As other people have pointed it out already, if you are already accustomed
> to the Wikipedia user interface for a longer time, you might find it
> difficult to fully understand what is the problem for newbies. And how big
> this is a problem, and how important it is to solve this problem.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Am Montag, 8. September 2014 schrieb Risker :
>
> > Well, I think that the "article editing" project (i.e., VE)  has a huge
> > potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues.  I don't
> see
> > tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
> > or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
> > such wildly divergent interfaces (one very flexible and the other very
> > rigid in structure), except perhaps in the mobile vs. desktop situation.
> >
> > I dunno, Marc.  There are different expectations about signature,
> depending
> > on the target group.  We still have people being freaked out that article
> > histories contain their username or IP (a form of automatic signature),
> so
> > I'm not convinced that there's an expectation on the part of new users
> that
> > anything they write anywhere will automatically be signed.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> >
> > On 8 September 2014 10:24, Marc A. Pelletier  > > wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
> > > > The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
> > > > something that we have technically been able to impose for years;
> > sinebot
> > > > didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
> > >
> > > I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
> > > sinebot even needs to exist to me is demonstration that the system is
> > > broken.
> > >
> > > You say that discussion isn't all that much harder than editing
> content.
> > >  Even if I agreed with that (and I do not, edit conflicts in articles
> > > are much rarer than on talk pages - and usually easier to sort out),
> > > that's not a *good* thing!
> > >
> > > Participating in discussion should be much, *much* easier than editing
> > > articles: encouraging newbies to seek help and participate in the
> > > community *before* diving in anything but trivial article edits would
> be
> > > an immensely powerful retention tool!
> > >
> > > (Which isn't to say that editing articles doesn't *also* need a lot of
> > > help - but that's a different project).
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

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).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
Mediawiki.org, for example :-)

b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorry to use this
word, *ridiculous* that you have to teach people how to communicate
technically in Wikipedia. I never had to explain to someone how to do that
on Facebook...

As other people have pointed it out already, if you are already accustomed
to the Wikipedia user interface for a longer time, you might find it
difficult to fully understand what is the problem for newbies. And how big
this is a problem, and how important it is to solve this problem.

Kind regards
Ziko



Am Montag, 8. September 2014 schrieb Risker :

> Well, I think that the "article editing" project (i.e., VE)  has a huge
> potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues.  I don't see
> tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
> or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
> such wildly divergent interfaces (one very flexible and the other very
> rigid in structure), except perhaps in the mobile vs. desktop situation.
>
> I dunno, Marc.  There are different expectations about signature, depending
> on the target group.  We still have people being freaked out that article
> histories contain their username or IP (a form of automatic signature), so
> I'm not convinced that there's an expectation on the part of new users that
> anything they write anywhere will automatically be signed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 8 September 2014 10:24, Marc A. Pelletier  > wrote:
>
> > On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
> > > The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
> > > something that we have technically been able to impose for years;
> sinebot
> > > didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
> >
> > I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
> > sinebot even needs to exist to me is demonstration that the system is
> > broken.
> >
> > You say that discussion isn't all that much harder than editing content.
> >  Even if I agreed with that (and I do not, edit conflicts in articles
> > are much rarer than on talk pages - and usually easier to sort out),
> > that's not a *good* thing!
> >
> > Participating in discussion should be much, *much* easier than editing
> > articles: encouraging newbies to seek help and participate in the
> > community *before* diving in anything but trivial article edits would be
> > an immensely powerful retention tool!
> >
> > (Which isn't to say that editing articles doesn't *also* need a lot of
> > help - but that's a different project).
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[phoebe ayers]

Thank you for this overview and history, Erik!

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> And as above, I'm open to us putting some short term effort into talk
> page improvements that can be made without Flow -- knowing it's still
> some time out.


Is there a good wiki page for brainstorming/discussing these kinds of talk
page improvements (that may or may not be part of Flow?)

I always find it helpful in these kinds of conversations to try and imagine
what concrete changes would help me on a day to day basis, as an editor and
discussion participant, since it can be hard to envision what working with
a whole new system would be like or to wrap one's head around the whole
universe of discussions that take place on talk pages.

best,
-- phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Risker]

Well, I think that the "article editing" project (i.e., VE)  has a huge
potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues.  I don't see
tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
such wildly divergent interfaces (one very flexible and the other very
rigid in structure), except perhaps in the mobile vs. desktop situation.

I dunno, Marc.  There are different expectations about signature, depending
on the target group.  We still have people being freaked out that article
histories contain their username or IP (a form of automatic signature), so
I'm not convinced that there's an expectation on the part of new users that
anything they write anywhere will automatically be signed.

Risker/Anne


On 8 September 2014 10:24, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
> > The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
> > something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
> > didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
>
> I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
> sinebot even needs to exist to me is demonstration that the system is
> broken.
>
> You say that discussion isn't all that much harder than editing content.
>  Even if I agreed with that (and I do not, edit conflicts in articles
> are much rarer than on talk pages - and usually easier to sort out),
> that's not a *good* thing!
>
> Participating in discussion should be much, *much* easier than editing
> articles: encouraging newbies to seek help and participate in the
> community *before* diving in anything but trivial article edits would be
> an immensely powerful retention tool!
>
> (Which isn't to say that editing articles doesn't *also* need a lot of
> help - but that's a different project).
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
> The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
> something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
> didn't come into existence in a vacuum.

I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
sinebot even needs to exist to me is demonstration that the system is
broken.

You say that discussion isn't all that much harder than editing content.
 Even if I agreed with that (and I do not, edit conflicts in articles
are much rarer than on talk pages - and usually easier to sort out),
that's not a *good* thing!

Participating in discussion should be much, *much* easier than editing
articles: encouraging newbies to seek help and participate in the
community *before* diving in anything but trivial article edits would be
an immensely powerful retention tool!

(Which isn't to say that editing articles doesn't *also* need a lot of
help - but that's a different project).

-- Marc


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

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

[Risker]

That's not a reasonable task, Marc.  Newbies have an equally hard time
editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
to a good faith attempt.  There is no evidentiary basis to demonstrate that
new users have a harder time participating in discussion than they do in
content contribution. Independent studies seem to identify the nature of
the discussions as being significantly more problematic than the technical
means of participating.

Nobody is saying that it is easy for newbies to participate on many of the
larger Wikimedia projects.  There are lots of ways that we can make it
easier.  The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
didn't come into existence in a vacuum.

Risker/Anne



On 8 September 2014 09:58, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 09/08/2014 12:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> > While it may not be everybody's dream system, talk pages are quite
> > usable, as demonstrated by a lot of people using them every single
> > day.
>
> That's... not a demonstration of usability.  Like many people, I found
> myself using some random blunt object not designed for purpose to hammer
> in a nail at least once; that speaks to the importance of getting the
> nail in, not the lack of need for a proper hammer.  :-)
>
> Let's be honest here; I'm /highly/ computer-literate, and I've been
> using Mediawiki for some 11 years and I *still* find talk pages an
> annoyance at the best of times and they can be downright painful if
> there's anything like a large discussion in progress you are attempting
> to track/participate in.  Between edit conflicts, increasingly confusing
> indentation, signatures that may or may not make separation between
> commenters clear...  It's no surprise that newbies are scared away.
> Editing articles is already hard enough, anything that provides an extra
> barrier to participation hurts - especially when that barrier lies in
> the way of getting /help/.
>
> Talk pages, as a mechanism, are lacking every affordance that users
> expect of a communication medium.  And no, that X thousand people have
> gotten used to their failings does not make them any better for the Y
> billion people that have not.
>
> But don't take my word for it!  Find random newbies, and ask them to try
> the simple task of commenting on a discussion in progress without giving
> them guidance.  They they flail around, or simply give up, remember that
> it's not /them/ who have failed -- I'm pretty sure they've participated
> in plenty of other online discussions before.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 09/08/2014 12:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> While it may not be everybody's dream system, talk pages are quite
> usable, as demonstrated by a lot of people using them every single
> day.

That's... not a demonstration of usability.  Like many people, I found
myself using some random blunt object not designed for purpose to hammer
in a nail at least once; that speaks to the importance of getting the
nail in, not the lack of need for a proper hammer.  :-)

Let's be honest here; I'm /highly/ computer-literate, and I've been
using Mediawiki for some 11 years and I *still* find talk pages an
annoyance at the best of times and they can be downright painful if
there's anything like a large discussion in progress you are attempting
to track/participate in.  Between edit conflicts, increasingly confusing
indentation, signatures that may or may not make separation between
commenters clear...  It's no surprise that newbies are scared away.
Editing articles is already hard enough, anything that provides an extra
barrier to participation hurts - especially when that barrier lies in
the way of getting /help/.

Talk pages, as a mechanism, are lacking every affordance that users
expect of a communication medium.  And no, that X thousand people have
gotten used to their failings does not make them any better for the Y
billion people that have not.

But don't take my word for it!  Find random newbies, and ask them to try
the simple task of commenting on a discussion in progress without giving
them guidance.  They they flail around, or simply give up, remember that
it's not /them/ who have failed -- I'm pretty sure they've participated
in plenty of other online discussions before.

-- Marc


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

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Pine, I would like so many things.. I expect that SUL and more goodliness
from this will be a requirement. For me there is urgency in having a
discussion system that works for mobiles and templates...

Once we have that we either have other priorities or it is a really good
idea to be implemented while developers know Flow intimately well..
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 8 September 2014 09:46, Pine W  wrote:

> A problem that I would like Flow to solve is the high amount of labor
> needed to read over a dozen pages across four wikis in order for the reader
> to access most of the MediaViewer discussions.
>
> Pine
> On Sep 8, 2014 12:22 AM, "David Gerard"  wrote:
>
> > On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > > If it is good
> > > software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
> > > with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
> > > even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
> >
> >
> > This is the key point.
> >
> > Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
> > going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
> > have it for ourselves? What's Flow's killer feature for us?
> >
> > (I asked this before.)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Language Engineering IRC Office Hour on September 10, 2014 (Wednesday) at 1700 UTC

[Runa Bhattacharjee]

[x-posted]

Hello,

The next monthly IRC office hour of the Wikimedia Language Engineering
team will be on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 1700 UTC on
#wikimedia-office.

We will be taking questions and discussing about our ongoing work,
particularly around the Content Translation project[1], and upcoming
plans.

Please see below for event details and local time. See you there.

Thanks
Runa

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation

Monthly IRC Office Hour:
===

# Date: September 10, 2014 (Wednesday)
# Time: 1700 UTC/1000PDT (Check local time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140910T1700)
# IRC channel: #wikimedia-office
# Agenda:
1. Content Translation project updates and plans
2. Q & A (Questions can be sent to me ahead of the event)

-- 
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

[Diego Moya]

On 8 September 2014 11:44, Diego Moya  wrote:

> Now if Erik vision for the deeper than I give him credit for,

... that would be: "Now if Erik vision for the Flow platform is deeper
than I give him credit for..."

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

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

[Diego Moya]

On 8 September 2014 05:54, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> And yet, after over a decade of open-ended design through social
> convention, the end result is...  our current talk pages.  Perhaps
> another decade or two will be needed before that document-centric
> architecture gives us a half-decent discussion system?

Marc, I'm not arguing against having a discussion system. In fact I
think having threaded comments happen by default is a great idea that
will make the conversation interface far more usable, both on desktop
and mobile (I agree with Gerard that the mobile editing experience is
dreadful).

The problem I see is with having that discussion system as the 'only'
option, making refactoring of conversations limited and difficult, and
removing the open-ended and flexible platform we currently rely upon,
when several important workflows and goals such as accountability and
building new workflows for projects are based on the well understood
capabilities of a wiki system.

The system I envision as a suitable, modern replacement would be based
on proven enterprise collaboration platforms like Microsoft OneNote or
Atlassian Confluence, which include discussion systems as modules
integrated within the platform. I simply can't see the benefit of
losing the collaboration capabilities of wiki software in favor of
enforced structured discussion, when we can have both.

Now if Erik vision for the deeper than I give him credit for, and he
is able to build a OneNote-like application on top of the suggested
architecture for Flow, I will eat my words with an apology :-)
However, that capability of the system should be better explained so
that we can understand it and discuss its ramifications.


On 7 September 2014 23:53, Diego Moya  wrote:
> On 09/06/2014 17:06 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
>>On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
>>> if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
>>> wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
>>
>>You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
>>collaborative discussion benefits from being a wiki (as opposed to, you
>>know, the actual content).
>
> Wikipedia has been built using that platform. I'd say that's a very good
> reason to trust that the model is at least capable. :-)
>
>
>
>>Very many people, myself included, believe that a wiki page is an
>>*atrocious* medium for discussion.
>
> Sure, and I agree there are many way to improve how users are
> engaged into discussion and to keep it manageable. But what is
> missing from this conversation is the point that Wikipedia talk
> space is not *merely* a medium for discussion: there are other vital
> roles that may be hindered by a radical focus on conversation:
>
> tl;dr version:  there are times and places that Wikipedia discussion
> system needs to be a Microsoft OneNote, and Flow is building us
> a Twitter (minus the 140 characters limit).
>
>
> - The talk space has a strong expectation that it serves as an
> archive of all decisions taken in building the articles, i.e. to
> show how the sausages are made. The disembodied nature
> of Flow topics, which may be shown out of order and distributed
> to many boards, makes it hard to recover a sequential view of the
> conversations in order as they happened.
>
> - Same thing for keeping user's behavior in check - policy
> enforcement often requires that the reviewers can see exactly
> what the users saw when they performed some particular
> disruptive action, to assess whether it was made in good faith
> from incomplete information or a misunderstanding.
>
> - Comment-based discussion is not the only way editors collaborate;
> nor discussions are limited to users expressing their particular views
> at ordered, pre-defined processes. Some fellow users have already
> pointed out how the wiki page works as a shared whiteboard where
> semi-structured or free-form content can be worked upon by several
> editors, and improved iteratively in an opportunistic way.
> Sometimes, that re-shaping of text is made onto the
> form of the conversation itself, by re-factoring, splitting, merging
> and re-classifying comments from many editors. This would be
> hard or impossible to do if the layout of the discussion is fixed
> in hardware and comments belong to the poster.
>
> - Wikiprojects develop over time new procedures that better suit
> the workflow of their members to achieve their goals. Their
> project pages are free-form collages of all the relevant information
> they require to do their work, plus discussion processes that may
> involve just its members or any other external participant. As
> projects cover all the aspects of human knowledge, it would be
> difficult to provide a one-size-fits-all interface that may cover all
> their needs - the flexibility to compose new layouts and
> compilations of content is core to achieve their goals.
>
> - There's a sense now that the community owns the content of all
> pages including ta

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

[Pine W]

A problem that I would like Flow to solve is the high amount of labor
needed to read over a dozen pages across four wikis in order for the reader
to access most of the MediaViewer discussions.

Pine
On Sep 8, 2014 12:22 AM, "David Gerard"  wrote:

> On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> > If it is good
> > software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
> > with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
> > even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
>
>
> This is the key point.
>
> Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
> going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
> have it for ourselves? What's Flow's killer feature for us?
>
> (I asked this before.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[David Gerard]

On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> If it is good
> software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
> with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
> even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.


This is the key point.

Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
have it for ourselves? What's Flow's killer feature for us?

(I asked this before.)


- d.

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