Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow: on featured article discussions

2014-09-16 Thread Diego Moya
On 15 September 2014 19:24, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Some people are seeing Flow messages as really important, something that
 they want to get updates on right away -- and right away can mean either
 in their watchlist where they go all the time, or in Echo where they'll see
 the notification. Other people see Flow messages as something they'll get
 to later, and they want to see more of a message inbox.

And then you have people like me who see them as *both*, just not for
the same pages. I've suggested that some topics and boards should
raise notifications and not others, depending on how important each
topic is for the user.

At least one other editor suggested that this could be done with a
check (notify me of updates for this board) to be selected on the
pop-up that appears when you add a topic to your watchlist. Is there
someone taking note of all these scattered suggestions in a central
place where they can be discussed?

___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow: on featured article discussions

2014-09-16 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Figuring out how Flow integrates with the watchlist and Echo is one of the
 toughest and most important parts of the project.


I think that may be an overstatement. I'm not saying it isn't tough, but
exploring in what ways wikipages are currently used as a vehicle for
organizing discussions across different projects and different wikis (and
possibly third parties), and supporting all those different use-cases seems
far tougher than how to interact with watchlists and notifications.

-- Martijn
___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-09-16 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from the recent quarterly review of the
Foundation's Language Engineering team are available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Language_Engineering/September_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow: on featured article discussions

2014-09-16 Thread Danny Horn
Diego, that is definitely what we're thinking about for the subscriptions
options -- giving users the ability to choose whether they want to
subscribe to every new thread, or just get a notification that a new thread
has been created. The balance that we have to figure out is how to provide
options on that page-by-page level without forcing people to go through two
clicks every time.

Right now, the list of items on the roadmap is on the Mediawiki Flow page.
[1] We're not enforcing a strict centralized place for discussions right
now; they're happening in a few different places. I'm going to be talking
with the Community team later this week to see what we can do about that. I
think the EE mailing list [2] is probably the best place to see what's
current and talk with the team.

We'll probably be tackling the subscription/notifications question in more
detail in a few weeks. Right now, we're working on Hide, the Table of
Contents, Search and the LiquidThreads transition. There's a lot to do! But
we'll definitely be getting back to notification options before too long.

Danny

[1]: Mediawiki Flow page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow#Roadmap
[2]: EE mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 15 September 2014 19:24, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  Some people are seeing Flow messages as really important, something that
  they want to get updates on right away -- and right away can mean
 either
  in their watchlist where they go all the time, or in Echo where they'll
 see
  the notification. Other people see Flow messages as something they'll get
  to later, and they want to see more of a message inbox.

 And then you have people like me who see them as *both*, just not for
 the same pages. I've suggested that some topics and boards should
 raise notifications and not others, depending on how important each
 topic is for the user.

 At least one other editor suggested that this could be done with a
 check (notify me of updates for this board) to be selected on the
 pop-up that appears when you add a topic to your watchlist. Is there
 someone taking note of all these scattered suggestions in a central
 place where they can be discussed?

 ___
 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,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Flow eliminate wikitext sandbox practice?

2014-09-16 Thread quiddity
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ain...@wikimedia.se wrote:

 2014-09-15 23:54 GMT+02:00 James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com:

  In the recent discussion of editor engagement effectiveness on
  wiki-research-l, the question of Flow's affect on talk page wikitext
  practice arose. I would like to know whether anyone shares my concern
 that
  eliminating wikitext talk pages will remove what has, for the past few
  terabytes of edits, served the same purpose as the sandbox pages which
 we
  encourage new editors to practice with.
 

Is that just enwp? On svwp we do not encourage people to use the talk pages
 as sandboxes. Instead we have a default-on gadget with a link to
 [[Special:MyPage/Sandbox]].



62 wikis have that gadget, and 50 of them have it enabled by default
currently, according to
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70499 (which is a bug-ticket
to enable the new Extension, that supercedes the gadget! This will fix the
last-second jump that the gadget-version causes, when it nudges the
user/echo/usertalk links to the left/right.  :)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SandboxLink

I believe it's still in need of translation work if anyone can help with
that :)
https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate/ext-sandboxlink
___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot+Bot Acadeny

2014-09-16 Thread Anders Wennersten
Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, 
with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 
000 (source used: Catalogue of Life).  With Naskobot, having earlier 
generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes 
etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M


The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback 
from the svwp  community, with comments like:
*for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on 
related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all 
mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more 
correct  (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also 
photo safaris are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are 
relevant to take photos of and include in articles
*experts are more attracted participating  when they are guided to the 
stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter 
information on Wikipedia when the base skeleton is there already 
(taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see 
an increasing number of University classes in biology given he 
assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species


We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a 
healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a 
slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase.  We can not 
say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the 
botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.


Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen 
of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more 
of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in 
order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing 
efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking 
in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to  see if also we 
can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles.


For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts
*lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He 
is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some 
interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript
*we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, 
nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to 
learn of this from the biggest seven...)
*lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with 
info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on 
authors?
*for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully 
integrate 10 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, 
in order to  by the end to generate, if wanted,  up to 10 articles 
related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot 
needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the 
Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be 
possible to get this going for a subset of articles in 2015 even if the 
full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy


Anders
for examples, press slumpartikel (random artiicle) on 
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida


___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] The Lighter Side of the Movement

2014-09-16 Thread Wil Sinclair
Howdy all,

One thing I've noticed in my short time as an active part of our
community is that the more welcoming and likable aspects of our
individual personalities aren't reflect in our most public
conversations. For example, if a new editor went by this forum alone,
we might come off as taking ourselves too seriously to leave room for
the fun and satisfaction that usually comes along with volunteering.
Moreover, we might be missing out on some of that fun and satisfaction
ourselves. ;)

I'm wondering if there is place where the lighter side of individual
Wikimedians and our movement can be shown front and center. What I'm
talking about would leave the controversial issues for wikimedia-l and
other fora, instead presenting stuff like funny stats about our
wikiprojects surfaced through clever metrics, the weirdest of the
weird factoids that we uncover in the process of documenting our
universe, interviews of Wikipedians on stuff they do beyond editing
wikis, and humorous essays that might venture in to good natured
lampooning of the movement. I'm already writing an article about the
next software feature to be enabled: Project Fish Bicycle. It will add
such features as full vertical reflections pioneered by Apple 10 years
ago under all articles, taking up only half the final rendered page
while compromising on a few minor existing article features, like
vowels. Think The Onion or your alma mater's humor publication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_humor_magazines. With a lot of
poor attempts at humor, and the occasional viral grand slam.

So. . . is there something like this already? If so, could someone
please point me in the direction of the nearest editor, so I can start
contributing myself? If not, would anyone be interested in helping me
line up a first issue?

Feel free to contact me directly or reply to the list. Whatever floats boats.

Toodles.
,Wil

___
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, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe