Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Science Portal? And Other Open * Portals?
Quiddity, Thank you for your reply! On 3/19/19 9:06 PM, quiddity wrote: On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:58 AM Svetlana Belkin wrote: Hello all, I know there is a FOSS portal Links/examples almost always help! I'd guess you mean this page or the pages it links to: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange but many other people won't know what you're referring to. Please include links when talking about something specific! but are there any portals for other Open * topics, such as Open Science (including citizen science), Open Access, Yes! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_access ect.? Maybe these (from a very quick search) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Open_data_publishing and dozens of other local, or smaller, or older pages such as https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Open_Science_Fellows_Program https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science Looks like that I didn't do my homework before asking this question because I was really referring to the main Wikipedia not the metawiki and I didn't realize that this mailing-list for the metawiki- apologizes that for that! The rationale behind is to have these portals as umbrella groups for resources and what's there in these big movement topics and have them in one place- which is Wikipedia. Would this idea be worth it for the other movements? Yes, please do update / improve the documentation. If it's a major topic and after searching you cannot find anything central, then perhaps start out by creating a disambiguation / linkhub for the pages that you can find, and expand from there - that way you can try to make sure you've found all the existing pages to begin with, and don't start off by accidentally re-inventing the wheel (portal)! We have a lot of historic link-lists / portals that are started and then abandoned and then accidentally reinvented elsewhere a few years later. I will take on this advice and start working that on that. As a new contributor, I should take the advice of working on the low-hanging fruit rather than starting big. Thank you again. -- Svetlana Belkin https://senseopenness.com/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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] Open Science Portal? And Other Open * Portals?
Hello all, I know there is a FOSS portal but are there any portals for other Open * topics, such as Open Science (including citizen science), Open Access, ect.? The rationale behind is to have these portals as umbrella groups for resources and what's there in these big movement topics and have them in one place- which is Wikipedia. Would this idea be worth it for the other movements? Thank you. -- Svetlana Belkin https://senseopenness.com/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 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] Fwd: Our final email
Hi, David Gerard wrote: Everyone who speaks English is American, particularly the English. Peter Southwood wrote: I can only assume this is intended as some form of humour, but I don’t get it. This line is a parody. Similarly to Everything that is eatable is an apple, particularly oranges. (The English = people from the UK = not American). -- svetlana ___ 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] How to fix Commons
In addition to the fact that the search sucks, and other issues mentioned here earlier, there are some issues with Commons. 1) Unlike Imgur, it doesn't have a big -- and useable -- upload button on the homepage. I know about media freedom, yet for sharing of photos I made, Commons is not the choice. There is a big multi-page form to fill in, — both the upload wizard and the special:upload page. I see uploadwizard as the tool with bigger potential for fixing this. 2) The upload wizard has no path from it to other sister projects. At Wikipedia and other sister projects, instead of writing a short article with a picture, I often resort to writing a short article without a picture, for this reason. (Occasionally I still upload a picture, but only when I /really/ need to). 3) Users often would like to share not only pictures, but also galleries, but the upload wizard lacks galleries integration, too. All these are UploadWizard issues: usability, integration with sister projects, gallery integration. Filed in its tracker: - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78523 UploadWizard should allow to upload an image in less clicks - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78524 UploadWizard lacks path from it to other sister projects - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78525 UploadWizard lacks gallery format output -- svetlana ___ 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] Fundraising campaign update
Megan Hernandez wrote: [...] And thank you for making Wikipedia a treasured resource that people are happy to support :) Quotes from Wikipedia readers: [...] We should do this on all sister projects, ideally. They gotta know the role of WMF in the movement (and a fundraising banner is a great opportunity to ask readers, users, and contributors for feedback). -- svetlana ___ 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] WMCH appeal to the Board on the recommendations of the FDC
Hi, Thanks a lot for the message. A minor technical comment: You forgot to sign your message with a timestamp: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants%3AAPG%2FAppeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDCdiff=10748958oldid=10719184 I would just fix it, but I don't know whether the timestamp I see is UTC or not. Please consider fixing it. -- svetlana Frieda Brioschi ubifri...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Wikimedia community, As the two Board Representatives on the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), we want to publicly acknowledge the appeal that was submitted by Wikimedia CH. [1] We appreciate the effort that Wikimedia CH’s Board and staff put into their appeal, which outlines their concerns with the FDC’s recent round (Round 1 2014-2015) of Annual Plan Grants recommendations. [2] We are now carefully reviewing the inputs to and the notes from the deliberations with the Board and the decision on the appeal will be announced at the same time as the recommendations. In the past, the Board’s deadline for decisions about the FDC’s recommendations for Round 1, including appeals, has been the first of the new year. This year, we will do our best to share the Board’s decision before then, if possible, and certainly by the end of 2014. We do wish for you all to have restful and peaceful holidays! With thanks, Frieda and Bishakha, on behalf of the WMF Board of Trustees [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC#Wikimedia_CH [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Wikimedia_CH ___ Frieda Brioschi mail: ubifri...@gmail.com - skype: ubifrieda cell: 328 0731320 http://it.linkedin.com/in/frieda ___ 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] How to fix Commons
MZMcBride wrote: geni wrote: 2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor. An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-) Or at least make them far less obnoxious. Saying if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion. Aye. I am a not malicious user, but I had over a handful of automated notices at Commons. To keep my user talk page readable, I had to redact them (replace each such notice with one line of plain text with links to relevant documentation). Would we consider (truly) semi-automating the process? :-) Let's use talk page canned responses. That's what this set of unofficial JS-free tools is doing for reviewing draft submissions at English Wikipedia, including communication at the draft talk page and the author talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gryllida/draft/under-review For instance, the text field with canned responses may look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%20talk:Fooaction=editsection=newpreload=User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/preloadpreloadtitle=editintro=User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/editintro Notice that it's characteristic of this message: a) it doesn't look like a banner. It looks like a normal message. b) it has free space for the reviewer to leave a personal comment to the user, which means a more human approach. There are some overheads. 1) It would be much easier to use as a banner shown only to reviewers during page edit. I don't know how to do that. 2) It would be much easier to use if preloadparams=[] thing from URL reflected on not only page content, but also on page edit banner. It does not, which introduces an overhead with the username parameter. Hope that helps. (I don't have the past context of this conversation to have confidence in that I'm bringing up a relevant point.) MZMcBride wrote: For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search functionality suck a lot less. +1 MZMcBride wrote: As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing. We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game). -- svetlana ___ 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 donate or not
Hi, Milos Rancic wrote: For example, I am sure that there are many people outside who would be willing to donate ~$10/month if they don't have to think about that (i.e., opt-in for monthly charge). I think that's precisely what happens to Chapters membership. And Chapters members probably have a say (?) in what the Chapters do. There is no Wikimedia membership, however. -- svetlana ___ 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] Fundraising banners (again)
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 17:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
svetlana, 03/12/2014 23:20:
It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try
talking to the Fundraising Team.
{{citation needed}}
Go look at the number of people who tried on fundraiser@,
m:Talk:Fundraising* and fundraising@ (well, this one you can't; it was
shut down because it was too lively).
Nemo
P.s.: Besides, talking to is not the problem, the problem is talking
with.
I don't deny that the Team might be deaf. It does take some skill however to
reach them and make a change rather than banter around how deaf they are.
--
svetlana
___
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] Fundraising banners (again)
It is already co-owned. It is just that people haven't bothered to try talking to the Fundraising Team. Is it time to rename Teams to something else, something that suggests that they don't work in a cave on the Moon? -- svetlana On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 08:32, Lodewijk wrote: Hi Lila, Thanks for your response. In the past, fundraising was more of a collaborative effort - maybe it would make sense to rethink the fundraising process after this round, and see how the community can be made co-own the process, so that the work of the team becomes easier, and friction less. I think that would be a way to solve a lot of the hurdles we're encountering right now. Best, Lodewijk On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote: Lila Tretikov lila@... writes: This type of fundraising is -- by its very nature -- obtrusive. We are thinking about other options. But, as with anything, every action has equal and opposite reaction. Anything we do, we have to consider the consequences and we will find flaws. Now for the specifics: Yes -- the fundraising team works incredibly hard to optimize and adjust to changes in our environment and to minimize obtrusiveness (there are multiple ways to measure this: total impressions, % conversions, size, parallelizing campaigns, etc.). It is a complex multi-variable equation. Fundraising uses A/B tests to do much of the optimization, but they also use surveys, user tests, and sentiment analysis. Some of what you see is counter-intuitive (even to me, and I have experience with this), but they work. All of this year's tests showed minimal brand impact even from the overlay screen. That said, going forward we are considering an unbiased 3rd party to do some of this analysis. I was unaware of these other metrics that fundraising collects. Can you share them with us? It would be really great to get information about the methodology used, the raw or anonymized data, and the curated data/visualizations that's being used to show there's no brand damage. Anecdotal evidence and social media suggests the opposite of what you're saying, so I'm eager to see the evidence that shows nothing's wrong. - Ryan ___ 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 ___ 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] Fundraising banners (again)
John Mark Vandenberg wrote: i.e. specifically asking previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work being adequately supported? Thanks for your great wording, John. I belong to this category (somewhat). I stopped contributing because I felt that my work is not adequately supported. I felt the need to develop some software. I have rather limited free time however, and I've been in the not highly productive on-wiki phase for over 3 years now. Incidentally, one of the entities that doesn't adequately support my work is my local chapter. It had been extremely hostile toward Wikimedia movement and after learning how it works I had no motivation to continue working with Wikimedia projects. How poorly the Wikimedia Foundation itself works wasn't the biggest obstacle (I found it mildly approachable and was (and am!) a tiny bit happy with it). -- svetlana ___ 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] Fundraising banners (again)
Hi, On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 12:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: John Mark Vandenberg wrote: i.e. specifically asking previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work being adequately supported? Thanks for your great wording, John. I belong to this category (somewhat). I stopped contributing because I felt that my work is not adequately supported. I felt the need to develop some software. I have rather limited free time however, and I've been in the not highly productive on-wiki phase for over 3 years now. Incidentally, one of the entities that doesn't adequately support my work is my local chapter. It had been extremely hostile toward Wikimedia movement and after learning how it works I had no motivation to continue working with Wikimedia projects. How poorly the Wikimedia Foundation itself works wasn't the biggest obstacle (I found it mildly approachable and was (and am!) a tiny bit happy with it). Have you looked into the funding situation of your local chapter? Does it have large cash reserves and large predicable revenue flows? -- John Vandenberg Thanks for the suggestion, but there is not a problem with how it is funded. It organizes events which miss the point. I would be happy to be more specific, but I will do so at a later point, not here and not now; what I was saying was only that *if* we were to do such survey, we would need to *also* ask people how happy they are with their Chapters activities and adequate support from them. The funding banner is for them all, not just WMF, after all. -- svetlana ___ 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] Fundraising banners (again)
Hi all. I can see clear interest in everyone on this thread wanting to figure out the right way to do it. Let's not jinx it by painting WMF Fundraising as the guys who break and community as the gwho rage. Both these groups are rather capable of working things out (unlike the ...who break and ...who rage terms indicate). Ryan Lane wrote: You have a community that's upset [...] Don't even say more. We are the supporters of the Wikimedia movement. That includes Lila, that includes the fundraising folks, that includes you and me and many other people. I don't see a reason to isolate any of these people and blame. I, for one, appreciate Lila for catalyzing this thread into communication with Fundraising Team. Such communication was clearly lacking (and when it is, it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early). -- svetlana ___ 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] Fundraising banners (again)
I wrote: it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say: it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early -- svetlana On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 14:47, svetlana wrote: Hi all. I can see clear interest in everyone on this thread wanting to figure out the right way to do it. Let's not jinx it by painting WMF Fundraising as the guys who break and community as the gwho rage. Both these groups are rather capable of working things out (unlike the ...who break and ...who rage terms indicate). Ryan Lane wrote: You have a community that's upset [...] Don't even say more. We are the supporters of the Wikimedia movement. That includes Lila, that includes the fundraising folks, that includes you and me and many other people. I don't see a reason to isolate any of these people and blame. I, for one, appreciate Lila for catalyzing this thread into communication with Fundraising Team. Such communication was clearly lacking (and when it is, it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early). -- svetlana ___ 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] Fundraising banners (again)
Ryan Lane, The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your last sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as they have to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if they had killed a kitten -- before they can approach you and ask for help. On one side, such hostile approach is something you might feel these folks deserve for their awful mistakes. You might feel that you're being more clear about it - but clarity doesn't really have to come at the cost of shaming and not having made a single move toward changing the situation. We are all learning. We should work out measurable, actionable steps toward solving the problem. Such steps should look pleasant, nice, encouraging, motivating, and informative. When looking at them, everyone reading the thread should smile and feel that they should've come up with these steps long ago (including all of the WMF staff and the fundraising folks), and feel motivated to expand them. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles was mentioned in this thread earlier as a collaboration space. It is probably a good one (although it lacks geometry specs or any kind of time or statistics suggestions or past analysis results). That's a wiki. It is just waiting for you to touch it and put it in better shape. -- svetlana On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, at 15:34, Ryan Lane wrote: svetlana svetlana@... writes: I wrote: it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early I unintentionally skipped a couple words. I meant to say: it's usually both sides of the conversation at fault, *such* *as* for accumulating their rage instead of communicating it early I worked for Wikimedia Foundation for a little over four years. Every year I (and many other staff members) have expressed worry about the size and message of the banners. There's been plenty of early communication. Every year we get promises that they'll work on making the banners better. However, it seems when they say better, they mean more effective from the perspective of generating revenue. The message from the fundraising staff and Lila is more of the same. This year I've started having people I know worry that Wikipedia is in financial trouble. It makes me feel ashamed when I have to tell them Wikipedia is in fact fine, but that the foundation uses this messaging to more effectively drive donations. It makes them angry to hear it. I'm not trying to paint this as us vs them. I'm trying to express that planting heads firmly in the sand is not an effective approach to dealing with the brand damage that's readily apparent on social media. - Ryan ___ 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] WHO interested in evidence on the impact of CC licensing
Not research, but it is a brief intro: http://www.plos.org/open-access/ http://www.plos.org/resources/ -- svetlana ___ 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] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, at 15:21, Tim Starling wrote: On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote: Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube, not Amazon, and not Wikimedia. Anything that says Data from this source will be (treated|priced) differently than data from another source is a violation of net neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential treatment is never accepted. But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user. The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate? What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that they are the same price? Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography. Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we don't use a big CDN. Why don't we? Is it one of the expensive for us, cheap for users things? If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their users. -- Tim Starling ___ 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 -- svetlana ___ 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] [Wikimediauk-l] Using list moderation as censorship
I maintain that I would love to have a formal universal feedback channel for Chapters work. It has to be drama-free, but transparent, and not moderated. Feedback is occasionally not negative, and may contain thorough project ideas. -- svetlana On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, As there is this constant call for more paper work for chapters, it has to be understood that this is exactly what kills the productivity of chapters. There are always more people with their opinion why this that or the other is amiss. They all have their arguments why they think they are right and consequently contribute to the noise level that is already way too high. If anything we should look for ways of appreciating the effect of chapters that does not make them beholden to every John Dick AND Harry and at the same time gives them equal space to move as effectively as the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Thanks, GerardM On 23 November 2014 at 23:02, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: To clarify: I would like to see a more strong mechanism for review of Chapters work. This includes thorough feedback channels about how Chapters communicate, how they spend their funding. Including means to dissolve a Chapter if a large chunk of people believes it is not working well (such as, providing inadequate support to the Wikimedia movement). This feedback channel is probably not here, but I feel this list could be an appropriate place to discuss how the above could be implemented. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 08:28, svetlana wrote: I disagree, the question raised is relevant to the Wikimedia movement as a whole. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 02:37, Austin Hair wrote: Fae, Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found yourself in on another. Wikimedia-l is neither a court of appeals for Wikimedia-related lists nor a bullhorn for your personal grievances. Austin On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Darcy, I am concerned at what appears to be deliberate suppression of questions raising governance related issues from the wikimedia UK email list. The email below is an example. The list was always intended to be independent of the UK chapter, though one of the moderators is one of your employees. Could you please confirm that neither you, nor your employees, are manipulating this public list to your political advantage. Thanks, Fae -- Forwarded message -- From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com Date: 18 November 2014 at 19:24 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Welcome ro D'Arcy Myers To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: geni...@gmail.com, Harry Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com It would be nice to hear from the board how this was discussed before offering the interim position. After all, in the several interviews I took part in for WMUK staff, pretty much the first basic question was along the lines of 'have you ever edited Wikipedia?' as a way of assessing what the candidate knows about Wikimedia; so I can not believe this would come as a surprise considering how sensitive the board is on COI and its perception by our community. Fae On 18 November 2014 19:13, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2014 18:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: [[user:Dcfmyers]] has no other edits. whoops missed a couple of deleted ones 2 edits to [[George More O'Ferrall]]. A direct copy and paste of http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/527160/ In fairness copyright is a pretty blameless error for new editors -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Using list moderation as censorship
Think I can run an instance of https://github.com/mozilla/fjord on Labs and have various Wikimedia projects (Wikis and Chapters) point to it in their sidebar. A universal Leave Feedback link. It would take people to a page similar to https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback, with an appropriate disclaimer: If you need help or have a problem with Firefox, please visit Firefox Support. We could be able to customize it for each project to fit our needs. (Include aggressive pointers to OTRS queues and village pumps for each project, as appropriate). Thoughts? -- svetlana On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, at 08:19, svetlana wrote: I maintain that I would love to have a formal universal feedback channel for Chapters work. It has to be drama-free, but transparent, and not moderated. Feedback is occasionally not negative, and may contain thorough project ideas. -- svetlana On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, As there is this constant call for more paper work for chapters, it has to be understood that this is exactly what kills the productivity of chapters. There are always more people with their opinion why this that or the other is amiss. They all have their arguments why they think they are right and consequently contribute to the noise level that is already way too high. If anything we should look for ways of appreciating the effect of chapters that does not make them beholden to every John Dick AND Harry and at the same time gives them equal space to move as effectively as the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Thanks, GerardM On 23 November 2014 at 23:02, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: To clarify: I would like to see a more strong mechanism for review of Chapters work. This includes thorough feedback channels about how Chapters communicate, how they spend their funding. Including means to dissolve a Chapter if a large chunk of people believes it is not working well (such as, providing inadequate support to the Wikimedia movement). This feedback channel is probably not here, but I feel this list could be an appropriate place to discuss how the above could be implemented. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 08:28, svetlana wrote: I disagree, the question raised is relevant to the Wikimedia movement as a whole. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 02:37, Austin Hair wrote: Fae, Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found yourself in on another. Wikimedia-l is neither a court of appeals for Wikimedia-related lists nor a bullhorn for your personal grievances. Austin On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Darcy, I am concerned at what appears to be deliberate suppression of questions raising governance related issues from the wikimedia UK email list. The email below is an example. The list was always intended to be independent of the UK chapter, though one of the moderators is one of your employees. Could you please confirm that neither you, nor your employees, are manipulating this public list to your political advantage. Thanks, Fae -- Forwarded message -- From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com Date: 18 November 2014 at 19:24 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Welcome ro D'Arcy Myers To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: geni...@gmail.com, Harry Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com It would be nice to hear from the board how this was discussed before offering the interim position. After all, in the several interviews I took part in for WMUK staff, pretty much the first basic question was along the lines of 'have you ever edited Wikipedia?' as a way of assessing what the candidate knows about Wikimedia; so I can not believe this would come as a surprise considering how sensitive the board is on COI and its perception by our community. Fae On 18 November 2014 19:13, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2014 18:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: [[user:Dcfmyers]] has no other edits. whoops missed a couple of deleted ones 2 edits to [[George More O'Ferrall]]. A direct copy and paste of http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/527160/ In fairness copyright is a pretty blameless error for new editors -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Using list moderation as censorship
I disagree, the question raised is relevant to the Wikimedia movement as a whole. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 02:37, Austin Hair wrote: Fae, Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found yourself in on another. Wikimedia-l is neither a court of appeals for Wikimedia-related lists nor a bullhorn for your personal grievances. Austin On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Darcy, I am concerned at what appears to be deliberate suppression of questions raising governance related issues from the wikimedia UK email list. The email below is an example. The list was always intended to be independent of the UK chapter, though one of the moderators is one of your employees. Could you please confirm that neither you, nor your employees, are manipulating this public list to your political advantage. Thanks, Fae -- Forwarded message -- From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com Date: 18 November 2014 at 19:24 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Welcome ro D'Arcy Myers To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: geni...@gmail.com, Harry Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com It would be nice to hear from the board how this was discussed before offering the interim position. After all, in the several interviews I took part in for WMUK staff, pretty much the first basic question was along the lines of 'have you ever edited Wikipedia?' as a way of assessing what the candidate knows about Wikimedia; so I can not believe this would come as a surprise considering how sensitive the board is on COI and its perception by our community. Fae On 18 November 2014 19:13, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2014 18:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: [[user:Dcfmyers]] has no other edits. whoops missed a couple of deleted ones 2 edits to [[George More O'Ferrall]]. A direct copy and paste of http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/527160/ In fairness copyright is a pretty blameless error for new editors -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ 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 ___ 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] [Wikimediauk-l] Using list moderation as censorship
To clarify: I would like to see a more strong mechanism for review of Chapters work. This includes thorough feedback channels about how Chapters communicate, how they spend their funding. Including means to dissolve a Chapter if a large chunk of people believes it is not working well (such as, providing inadequate support to the Wikimedia movement). This feedback channel is probably not here, but I feel this list could be an appropriate place to discuss how the above could be implemented. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 08:28, svetlana wrote: I disagree, the question raised is relevant to the Wikimedia movement as a whole. On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 02:37, Austin Hair wrote: Fae, Please do not drag this list into whatever trouble you've found yourself in on another. Wikimedia-l is neither a court of appeals for Wikimedia-related lists nor a bullhorn for your personal grievances. Austin On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Darcy, I am concerned at what appears to be deliberate suppression of questions raising governance related issues from the wikimedia UK email list. The email below is an example. The list was always intended to be independent of the UK chapter, though one of the moderators is one of your employees. Could you please confirm that neither you, nor your employees, are manipulating this public list to your political advantage. Thanks, Fae -- Forwarded message -- From: Fæ fae...@gmail.com Date: 18 November 2014 at 19:24 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Welcome ro D'Arcy Myers To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediau...@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: geni...@gmail.com, Harry Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com It would be nice to hear from the board how this was discussed before offering the interim position. After all, in the several interviews I took part in for WMUK staff, pretty much the first basic question was along the lines of 'have you ever edited Wikipedia?' as a way of assessing what the candidate knows about Wikimedia; so I can not believe this would come as a surprise considering how sensitive the board is on COI and its perception by our community. Fae On 18 November 2014 19:13, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November 2014 18:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: [[user:Dcfmyers]] has no other edits. whoops missed a couple of deleted ones 2 edits to [[George More O'Ferrall]]. A direct copy and paste of http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/527160/ In fairness copyright is a pretty blameless error for new editors -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ 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 ___ 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] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 10:55, Juergen Fenn wrote: 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se: The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September. Regards, Jürgen. Were that the case, I'd've expected WM-DE to dissolve in protest. That it exists suggests that things would continue to work the same way - with the Chapter supporting outreach and similar activities - for another while. -- svetlana ___ 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] Wiki Project Med
Kirill Lokshin wrote: I'm pleased to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized Wiki Project Med [1] as a Wikimedia User Group [2]. Could be a good idea for wikiproject folks to work on a RSS feed of recent changes (and recent new page creations) within a category and its subcats. Sounds like a thing that'd increate all our participation in WikiProjects in the first place - and resolve plenty of user retention issues. Some previous (incomplete) notes on this field: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Means_for_watching_categories ___ 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] Wiki Project Med
Thanks Anthony for sharing your ideas! Anthony Cole wrote: Svetlana, presently we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Lists_of_pages/Articles which reports all changes to articles tagged on their talk page as of interest to WikiProjedt Medicine (about 33,000 so far). This is a grand tool. Though 1) it doesn't filter for new page creations (would it be nice to have a new page tag?), and 2) is not as grained as subcats would be (where people would be able to pick a more narrow topic to watch). Anthony Cole wrote: I'd like all our medical articles to have a button at the top saying email me when this article changes, so interested experts could easily adopt a few articles. Yes, this is a watchlist thing, it's already there (interested people can enable email delivery). ___ 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] Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on Ebola
MZMcBride wrote: http://nyti.ms/1rHy4fK Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on Ebola Noam Cohen October 26, 2014 The New York Times Neat! (And a bit terrifying.) MZMcBride Should be fun to remember -- in addition to the poorly honored WP:NOTNEWS -- other language sisters, and do some proper statistics, as EN.WP ≠ WP... svetlana ___ 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] personally communicating with new editors (was: Re: editor retention initiatives)
Hi, David Goodman wrote: Perhaps the best way of doing this is the admittedly laborious method of personally communicating with new editors who seem promising and encouraging them and offering to help them continue. The key word in this is personally. It cannot be effectively done with wikilove messages , and certainly not with anything that looks like a template. Template welcomes are essentially in the same class as mail or web personalizedadvertisements. What works is to show that you actually read and appreciated what they are doing, to the extent you wanted to write something specific. Thanks, I agree. I'm pretty passionate about making a difference in this area. I would personally go and start doing that /right now/, but the question remains open: Which activity should I engage in for all that to happen? - Look at recent edits and collaborate with new people? That's a most thankless item on this list, perhaps, as people edit more than anything else. - Look at newly created pages and collaborate on those with due care and attention to the new people? That'd be nice. (although imo the drafts process at English Wikipedia creates an unnecessary hierarchy -- I'd love to remain a peer and treat the newcomer as a source of wonderful knowledge, not as a reviewee or mentoree. For this reason, I might perhaps only do this to articles created in main namespace.) - I had written a script [2] which makes draft review things more personal by not using a template in review comments, but I couldn't figure out whom to approach to get it deployed, or how to prevent ugly [3] templates on talk pages of people who submitted a draft for review. - Reworking the welcome template into something else? Into what specifically? - There are other things I tried to do, such as leave simple short messages such as [4], but I have not been doing enough of them to figure out who likes them. - Many many examples, warning vandals for example, completely template thing, they get reborn as trolls, etc. see also [5]. But there is a need to not feed them still, i.e. put some effort into personal communication but not too much. - Figuring out how to provide IP contributors with more software, up to the point it's technically possible? ([1] lists some software limitations). - add your thought here How do I set priorities in such list? Where to start tackling the problem? svetlana [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Musings_about_unregistered_contributors [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gryllida/DraftsReview [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Artistintown [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.194.3.84 [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Clogged_talk_pages ___ 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] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, at 13:19, Pine W wrote: I have heard very few people say don't ever change the interface. I have heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think is an improvement. VE was a good example. The sentiment of the community wasn't that VE''s concept is wrong, it's that the implementation and rollout had major deficiencies. The MV issue is larger than than the usual editor-focused interface change because it impacts readers as well as editors, and there were issues with the display of licenses to readers. Personally I feel that the MV issues are fixable but the rollout should have been handled differently, and I am glad that the community and WMF both want to avoid repeating rollout problems again and again. Pine This instance is not new; https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_configuration_changes is a historical list of similar pattern in the relationship. They already told you that they are doing this to not lose readers, so that fundraising keeps working. Tops you can do is, like the WMF folks remarked earlier, is have community work on what it needs from the bottom up grassroots etc. A first step here, I believe, is have the Teams track bugs in the open; from my own experience, the Flow and Multimedia folks track bugs somewhere else where I can't even view or comment (and even if I could, it being different from Bugzilla would make things harder). I'm not sure what about migration to Phabricator, but I think it's an operations style of thing (I'm yet to figure out how to get involved, but it'd make it easier for anyone to work on the new features - they are really documented on-wiki (thankfully they only internalise only bug tracking atm), although so far only in English mostly). svetlana ___ 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] Specifying office action in edit summary?
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, at 07:02, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:53 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: An undo with appropriate edit summary would also avoid a need in escalating the issue - local sysops would consciously hold off their edit. If they went against an office action, introducing superprotect /then/ could make sense Note that's exactly what was tried in the dewiki situation. The first WMF revert[1] refers to a warning on the talk page[2] that (according to Google Translate, and Erik's later statements) seems to basically say Please don't do this again. Otherwise we might have to remove the editability of this page. But the local sysop didn't hold off; according to Google Translate he replied With threats you will achieve nothing. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.jsdiff=132938232oldid=132931760 [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Diskussion:Common.jsdiff=132938244oldid=132935469 And then they draw comics stating that that's WMF's fault? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_building_wiki_wall_in_August_2014_caricature.jpg What a wonderful community (clique of active editors and sysops) we have. svetlana ___ 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] Specifying office action in edit summary?
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, at 07:02, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:53 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: An undo with appropriate edit summary would also avoid a need in escalating the issue - local sysops would consciously hold off their edit. If they went against an office action, introducing superprotect /then/ could make sense Note that's exactly what was tried in the dewiki situation. The first WMF revert[1] refers to a warning on the talk page[2] that (according to Google Translate, and Erik's later statements) seems to basically say Please don't do this again. Otherwise we might have to remove the editability of this page. But the local sysop didn't hold off; according to Google Translate he replied With threats you will achieve nothing. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.jsdiff=132938232oldid=132931760 [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_Diskussion:Common.jsdiff=132938244oldid=132935469 -- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation By the way, while there is a downside to what the folks did (as in, edit war and insist on stuff), I suppose it's partly justified by the thing being a first point in time where a local consencus was considered insufficient. I took some notes of this, and possible solutions, on this draft essay: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Regaining_trust_in_local_consencus I expect that superprotect is just a consequence of such missing trust; once the trust is regained, there is no need in superprotect in principle. svetlana ___ 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] Specifying office action in edit summary?
Hi all, I'm sorry to repeat, but I would like to hear some thoughts on this question. Also added a clarification for one of the lines. On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, at 22:26, svetlana wrote: Hi all. I understand the Engineering folks used superprotect instead of /undoing/ the edit and adding 'This is a WMF action.' in edit summary. Could I please be enlightened on the reasoning behind that? I suppose people could go and try editing other JS pages and cause havoc, but that's still possible where superprotect only affects a single page and not a namespace. Or can entire namespaces be protected and this new user right was intended to be able to prevent that easily? This is worded poorly, I mean - or can entire namespaces be protected and the new user right was intended as a means to easily revoke mediawiki:* access? Svetlana. svetlana ___ 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] Specifying office action in edit summary?
Risker wrote: Office actions are almost never undertaken by Engineering staff; it's usually Legal Community Advocacy staff, or rarely another administrative staff member. How should an Engineering Staff member indicate that he'd like an edit undone and not done again? Through an Office Action? One'd think that an edit summary is the only way. Why is it not being used? An undo with appropriate edit summary would also avoid a need in escalating the issue - local sysops would consciously hold off their edit. If they went against an office action, introducing superprotect /then/ could make sense (although I would personally iterate through 2 undos with a massive warning in the second one). Now, in your reply, why do I fail to see a reason why such approach was or is not used? Could you please clarify? Risker wrote: What you are talking about is something that has only been done very occasionally over the years by Engineering/Operations staff/sysadmins. There has been no designated manner in which those actions should be flagged. This doesn't appear to be a problem to me. Sysops surely read edit summaries. (Note how Erik doesn't use a (WMF) account either - he wrote a message and appended 'this is a wmf action' to the end, which /WAS ENOUGH/. Risker wrote: One must remember that until the last few years, the majority of individuals who could have taken (and in some cases, did take) such serious action were volunteer sysadmins, so labeling it a WMF action would not have been correct. OK, some context - doesn't really apply to this case. In this case it was not a volunteer sysadmin. Risker wrote: We also have to remember that many of the systems that developers and engineers work with on a daily basis do not permit edit summaries, so adding what for many of us is an automatic and routine comment is for some of them a rare and unusual event. (Perhaps they should set their work account preferences to be reminded to include an edit summary?) Our Eng Staff don't know how to use wiki software is perhaps a way to tell why they forgot to do it, but it doesn't mean that doing it wouldn't've been a good idea. I might perhaps even suggest going and removing superprotect, and actually going and using an edit summary /instead/, now. It's late, but better late then never. svetlana ___ 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] Specifying office action in edit summary?
Hi all. I understand the Engineering folks used superprotect instead of /undoing/ the edit and adding 'This is a WMF action.' in edit summary. Could I please be enlightened on the reasoning behind that? I suppose people could go and try editing other JS pages and cause havoc, but that's still possible where superprotect only affects a single page and not a namespace. Or can entire namespaces be protected and this new user right was intended to be able to prevent that easily? Svetlana. ___ 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] Options for the German Wikipedia
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 12:12, MZMcBride wrote: Hi. The German Wikipedia has evaluated and decided against the default use of MediaViewer on its project (preferring opt-in, rather than opt-out). Erik has made it his mission to impose MediaViewer on the German Wikipedia using Wikimedia Foundation staff coercion (cf. https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/153302 and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/153345). Both changes have been pushed through hastily and have had negative repercussions as a result (missing translations, disrupted workflows, etc.). From a recent Bugzilla comment about the latter change, it's clear this change was a kneejerk reaction without a lot of thought as to the effects. The security of the entire MediaWiki infrastructure, which in turn is the security of a large portion of Wikimedia wikis, heavily relies on the idea that local administrators can be trusted. With his provocative actions, Erik has declared war on the German Wikipedia. Given this, there are options for the German Wikipedians. This is a non-exhaustive list and may not reflect the latest waste of developer and system administrator resources coerced by Erik. Write an extension which removes superprotect from the wiki. Get local consencus on installing that. svetlana ___ 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] Options for the German Wikipedia
BTW you should all love this idea: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_%28Product%29/Process_ideas#Get_local_consencus_for_your_changes svetlana ___ 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] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you
Hi, On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, at 10:12, Risker wrote: Well, hold on here. On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of bugs. I don't think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of substantial problems, by merely squashing bugs. You might say that is the wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than others to ad hoc collaborative processes. Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling everything reported using bugzilla a bug is incorrect and inappropriate. In this case, we have a broad range of issues: * does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload another photo The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to do it? It does. There is an Edit button at the top, and an Upload button at the left. * does it reflect copyright holders' licenses accurately and effectively Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less accurate than the Commons/File pages? * does it adequately respect the privacy of the subjects of photos The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the software being used to display more information and detail in the image. If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer problem, it's an image usage problem. Showing description is important for privacy of subject of photo in some cases. I.e. if I kill a cat for a movie and someone takes a picture, I should be able to tell readers that I'm doing this for a movie. The long description usually does so, if needed. Otherwise the readers might perceive that doing this is my usual activity. This is probably not the original issue in mind of the first folk who mentioned privacy two paragraphs up there, but that's the first thing I can think of. Another thing is slideshows. The Big Pictures website lets people browse pictures with long descriptions. We have galleries, and MV's left/right arrows. Why not make something in the middle, with both a long description/caption, and these left/right arrows? * does it reflect a look and feel that we feel OK about and is consistent with the rest of the software etc. etc. What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague suggestions that there is an issue. MV is inconsistent, because other pages (history, talk) still force a page reload, for instance, and returning from them back to an article isn't as easy as one 'X' button. Fixing one bug may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated process to identify the problems and the best solutions. This is not easy to do and takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack of trying) managed to do a very bad job of that with this software product, and with many software products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient. Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had bugs or unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants. Risker/Anne No comment on this one. svetlana ___ 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] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you
Hi, On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, at 10:12, Risker wrote: Well, hold on here. On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of bugs. I don't think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of substantial problems, by merely squashing bugs. You might say that is the wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than others to ad hoc collaborative processes. Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling everything reported using bugzilla a bug is incorrect and inappropriate. In this case, we have a broad range of issues: * does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload another photo The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to do it? It does. There is an Edit button at the top, and an Upload button at the left. * does it reflect copyright holders' licenses accurately and effectively Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less accurate than the Commons/File pages? * does it adequately respect the privacy of the subjects of photos The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the software being used to display more information and detail in the image. If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer problem, it's an image usage problem. Showing description is important for privacy of subject of photo in some cases. I.e. if I kill a cat for a movie and someone takes a picture, I should be able to tell readers that I'm doing this for a movie. The long description usually does so, if needed. Otherwise the readers might perceive that doing this is my usual activity. This is probably not the original issue in mind of the first folk who mentioned privacy two paragraphs up there, but that's the first thing I can think of. Another thing is slideshows. The Big Pictures website lets people browse pictures with long descriptions. We have galleries, and MV's left/right arrows. Why not make something in the middle, with both a long description/caption, and these left/right arrows? * does it reflect a look and feel that we feel OK about and is consistent with the rest of the software etc. etc. What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague suggestions that there is an issue. MV is inconsistent, because other pages (history, talk) still force a page reload, for instance, and returning from them back to an article isn't as easy as one 'X' button. Fixing one bug may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated process to identify the problems and the best solutions. This is not easy to do and takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack of trying) managed to do a very bad job of that with this software product, and with many software products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient. Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had bugs or unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants. Risker/Anne No comment on this one. svetlana ___ 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] rfc guidelines (was: superprotect; was: 'everyone who tries to speak for 'community' is censored and trying to blame it for own lack of interest')
in light of the recent conversation about superprotect and about what community could or should do to get things done specifically i am worried about guidelines on rfcs it is completely and utterly wrong to get feedback about software on a small page 99.99% of users dont know about and i find a lot of rfcs are written poorly and are a waste of time please try to participate in draft of a help thing - not policy! - on rfc guidelines here; https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment#Suggested_guidelines the bit is pasted from mainspace onto talk page, and you should give it your good axe -- svetlana ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 23:35, David Gerard wrote: On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that early participation there is no possibility for later consensus. A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault. - d. How could presence of interest help people to fix media viewer? From its early beta testing, I wrote numerous feedback about how going fullscreen is a misleading redundant step. It was not implemented. What more interest could I have? It's not like I care about this too much, but I'm curious as to what you expect me to be able to do to display my interest. svetlana ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, at 09:47, svetlana wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 23:35, David Gerard wrote: On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that early participation there is no possibility for later consensus. A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault. - d. How could presence of interest help people to fix media viewer? From its early beta testing, I wrote numerous feedback about how going fullscreen is a misleading redundant step. confusing wording; i mean: they still coded it to go fullscreen nomatter what i wanted them to have a dialog of sorts instead It was not implemented. What more interest could I have? It's not like I care about this too much, but I'm curious as to what you expect me to be able to do to display my interest. svetlana ___ 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] Special:PageLanguage (was: [Translators-l] We have an awesome Translation Tools....made for English speakers first)
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, at 00:52, Niklas Laxström wrote: Translate extension has supported for a long time having any language as the source language. There just has not been an interface in MediaWiki to set the source language of a page. The good news is that Kunal Grover, a GSoC student has created Special:PageLanguage to do just that. [1] I expect it will be available quite soon. [...] [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kunalgrover05/Progress_Report On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, at 01:50, Philippe Verdy wrote: This is good development, but I don't see why we need a special page to define what is metadata of the page itself. [...] Yes, I have same question. On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, at 01:50, Philippe Verdy wrote: May be it will be accessible from the VisualEditor; like we edit categories, but such metadata is a general need for lots of other applications. The general need would be to be able to associate metadata with a symbolic type to any page: just a few metadata is currently handled in MediaWiki: categories, default sortkeys, interwiki links, plus a few other flags inserted by using magic words (like __NOINDEX__). There are also external metadata stored in Wikidata for some wiki projects. More are needed (e.g. for different typing sort keys). Any way I expect to see soon a reliable way to detect the page language including for translated pages; but more importantly for sources of translations without having to assume they are in English, or create thme in another language and creating a pseudo-translation to the original language by copying keys, then modifying the English source again but keeping the original text. At least, when we mark a new page for translation, we should immediately have an option asking in which language is the source; if it's not specifid by the new experimental Special:PageLanguage page (which is not necessarily needed). And once a source page has been marked for translation, the Translate tool should have a simple API to query its language or the language used in the generated translations, And ideally, we should be able to swithc from one source language to another (for example some projects start in English, but are later managed in German or Chinese, or a local Chapter initially creates documents in its own local language such as French, Hindi or Spanish, and will not use English as the reference (this is important for pages reporting local projects mostly done in other languages, outside countries or regions with a majority of native English-speakers, i.e: most countries of the world, including Europe (and even North America where French and Spanish are very present too ; Spanish and Chinese are also growing fast in US, and here there are aslo local communities that would like to promote their own local projects in their native non-English tongue : do you remember that US does not have any official language ?). Kunal Grover, could you please fill in about that? svetlana ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Romaine Wiki wrote: 2014-08-13 2:46 GMT+02:00 svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au: [..] [...] instead of talking properly then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it? desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating they didn't collaborate at all they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving people from i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other people I do not think the community thinks that way. It doesn't think so inherently, but it lacks some useful habits. Members of the community can make mistake and staff members of WMF can make mistakes, I think that both that community and WMF are grown up enough to correct mistakes if they arise. Certainly inside the community are many critical people who watch these kind of things carefully and do correct those things when a mistake is made. The German community did collaborate, did communicate. Having a voting is a desperate way of getting the attention of the big problems WMF has too little insight in apparently. The community does not think in power structures, WMF does. Writing an RFC is a complicated process. You don't ask people whether they want to go backwards, for one; they almost always do, but it is not always a good thing. svetlana ___ 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] Writing an RFC is a complicated process. Thoughts? (was: [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 20:36, svetlana wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Romaine Wiki wrote: 2014-08-13 2:46 GMT+02:00 svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au: [..] [...] instead of talking properly then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it? desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating they didn't collaborate at all they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving people from i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other people I do not think the community thinks that way. It doesn't think so inherently, but it lacks some useful habits. Members of the community can make mistake and staff members of WMF can make mistakes, I think that both that community and WMF are grown up enough to correct mistakes if they arise. Certainly inside the community are many critical people who watch these kind of things carefully and do correct those things when a mistake is made. The German community did collaborate, did communicate. Having a voting is a desperate way of getting the attention of the big problems WMF has too little insight in apparently. The community does not think in power structures, WMF does. Writing an RFC is a complicated process. You don't ask people whether they want to go backwards, for one; they almost always do, but it is not always a good thing. svetlana I started drafting some thoughts on what /not to do/ in an RFC. These thoughts can be found here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment#Guidelines ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 00:50, Pete Forsyth wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: [...] Surely this issue can be solved by talking without force: if you don't think so, you get force applied to YOU; you started a fight, and lost it. I have advocated using force? Where?! Please don't answer -- I am done with this thread, it has no basis in reality. I am being generic. The you refers to whoever made the edit which was reverted by WMF and super-protected. ___ 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] how global.js works? (was: Re: [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 07:32, Erik Moeller wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and analysis Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked for the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a positive path forward. Dear Pete, [...] If we're being honest, at the end of the day, a lot of this is about establishing clear governing principles for the MediaWiki: namespace. This is indeed true. Why does a global.js or whatever edit override user preference in the first place? I would expect user preferences to run after global.js, and set the onClick event back to what it should be (such as, something meaningful where a user has MV enabled). svetlana ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote: That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on WMF side and too less is done to fix those problems/issues! if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against the other party instead of talking properly then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it? desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating they didn't collaborate at all they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving people from i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other people ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:46, svetlana wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote: That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on WMF side and too less is done to fix those problems/issues! if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against the other party instead of talking properly then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it? desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating they didn't collaborate at all they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving people from i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other people sysops aren't even held accountable they are elected once for an infinite term nobody reviews their contribution in position in power ever this would surely be solved by making them elected on a 2-year term then re-elect svetlana ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 08:42, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote: Someone is definitely forgetting that Wikimedia wikis are not the Foundation's personal playground. It is becoming one for a long time now. svetlana ___ 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] Options for the German Wikipedia
One more option: wait for WMF to make wiki unbreakable and scriptable *properly*, using something like Firefox's jetpack (which is fool proof) ___ 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] [Translators-l] Thank you for Tech News see you soon
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 04:07, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote: Philippe, the patch is not for the MediaWiki software but for the configuration of Wikimedia wikis (it's in the operations/mediawiki-config repository on Gerrit). It has been merged and deployed on the production cluster. The user right has been added to the global staff user group, and it has already been used to protect the MediaWiki:Common.js page on the German Wikipedia so that no one can edit it except Wikimedia Foundation employees. Wikimedia Foundation is using this user right to actively fight its community of volunteers. This is something I cannot and will not support. Tomasz completely agree with 100% of the above cc'ing 2 more lists ftr, the change discussed is: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153302/ ___ 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] slow death of anyone can edit concept (was: let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming))
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, at 11:47, MZMcBride wrote: [...] For comparison, we now have MediaViewer, which moved through as a beta feature. They say MediaViewer may one day be as feature-ful as the file description pages we've had for a long time (editing capability, oh my!). [...] MZMcBride Related: http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/index.html?page=Temperate_climate This re-make of the Vector skin lacks a prominent Edit button. I would adore talking to the relevant project people, but I /do not see them/ on this wonderful page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Winter ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] slow death of anyone can edit concept (was: let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming))
On Sat, 9 Aug 2014, at 23:11, James Forrester wrote: [..] https://imgur.com/a/JFN9y 404 ___ 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] [Wikitech-l] slow death of anyone can edit concept
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014, at 02:59, gnosygnu wrote: Here's a cleaner link: https://imgur.com/a/JFN9y I can't read single-color flat icons. I don't discern them as something clickable or functional. In 1990s, Microsoft invented 256 colors icons which look a bit 3d: http://www.7tutorials.com/files/img/wordpad/Wordpad_1.jpg these icons were used by other apps: http://www.favbrowser.com/images/mosaic-browser.jpg and today 3d with more color such as notepad in windows 7: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z8qe-WH8cYY/TsSHqCM_tqI/ASw/cOD0O7Nw00k/s200/notepad-icon.jpg but in windows 8 the icon is flat and two-color again which is a pain: http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/dakirby309/windows-8-metro/256/Apps-Notepad-Metro-icon.png can we please go away from flat one- or two-color icons in web design? svetlana ___ 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] let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming)
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, at 15:44, Steven Walling wrote: The community liasons put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to advocate not only *to *the community, but *for it* within the Foundation. This activity should be redundant. If someone in the Foundation fails to see the community, it should be fixed. ___ 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] let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming)
With due notes that I just yesterday updated my nick and my e-mail, and I'm the one who started this thread; On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, at 06:58, Quim Gil wrote: - encourage feedback by absolutely /anyone/ about the next features they'd like, Betas and Bugzilla today. Phabricator should make it easier to provide feedback in a wider range of topics, not only bugs. 99% of users of Wikimedia projects don't /know/ about these tools. That's the problem, and your response is not reflecting it. - run programming and documentation activities requested (or started) by community [there would be a lot of small projects, unlike the big ones the current Teams are working on], I for one would welcome more initiatives and requests from the community. The PyWikiBot is a good example of a team that asks us to help organizing and promoting their special activities. More proposals are welcome. Listening to me (or other mailing list members) here or in your personal e-mail is not the way to go, as mentioned in my earlier line. - encourage localising documentation for, and centralising the location of, all community-developed programming work, Nemo has been a very active advocate, and I want to believe that WMF teams have been increasingly relying on centralized and translatable documentation in their releases, asking explicitly for translation help. I had trouble talking with Nemo. He doesn't go in lengthy discussions about development and explaining things on IRC. Is he more willing to follow-up and give examples over e-mail? Probably; I have not tried. On the plus side, I've had infinitely nice experience with him regarding translations of documentation. - raise awareness of community development efforts across all Wikimedia projects, This is an explicit goal for Tech Ambassadors and Community Liaisons. Related message: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-August/073696.html - actively encourage members of community become MediaWiki and Gadgets hackers in the Free Software philosophy? Ah, you are touching a point of my personal ToDo list that I know we are not addressing as well as we could. That is correct, and is the problem. Still, we are trying to focus this line of activity in conjunction with our participation in Google Summer of Code, FOSS Outreach Program for Women, and recently also Google Code-in and Facebook Open Academy. Those, and IEG/PEG grants, scratch only a very small part of the userbase, and only their bigger projects. The problem is with engaging a vast majority of userbase in scripting the software to meet their personal needs. See, for instance, with Firefox, customizing is exceptionally easy using existing add-ons or writing your own using the Jetpack. These are well-documented technologies and they're also, unlike what happens at Wikimedia projects, well advertised to end users. Would you like to see MediaWiki as openly customizable as Firefox? This would be, in my view, a relatively small, collaboration-type team (with just half a handful of people for timezone coverage for IRC support). To me this is not a task of one team or two, but a set of practices better embodies in our development and deployment processes, and also a set of activities that a larger community should embrace. In fact, this is what my Wikimania session is about! Shameless plug: https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Wikimedia_open_source_project_and_you Wikimania people are a tiny part of the userbase. _How_ would you do what you're talking about there? This is not mentioned in the abstract, even though the problem raised is similar. (It was scheduled at the Technology, Interface Infrastructure track but believe me, it's more about WikiCulture Community.) I'm curious about the subject of you message, especially the let's elect people part. What do you mean? Community volunteers could be featured for their technical work, and get rigorous feedback from community. If some of them start doing it contrary to community expectations, there should be means to clearly display that (and kick them out if they start doing rubbish and fail to hear the said feedback). -- This is very unclear and unspecific. I would expect others to come up with a specific mechanism for such cases. Svetlana. ___ 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
