Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Introducing WikiContrib 1.0!

2019-09-07 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:25 AM Rammanoj Potla 

> I am happy to introduce you to the first version of WikiContrib
> . WikiContrib is a developer
> metrics tool which can be used to view a developer’s contributions on
> Phabricator and Gerrit. This tool was initially designed keeping a
> Wikimedia Hackathon scholarship committee in mind and with the hope that
> the tool will make it easier for them to decide on a candidate’s
> application. All community members can also use the tool to learn more
> about the contributions of fellow Wikimedians or discover their own!

Very cool tool!

IMO the usability could be improved a lot by removing the little red icon
from the first row when it is the only one (it seems like some sort of "the
fields are not filled out correctly" feedback when it is actually just a
"delete row" button which does not make sense with just one row), and
making the search button much more prominent compared to the other
controls. Also maybe making it possible to search by pressing enter in one
of the text fields.

It would be particularly awesome (but maybe hard?) to also count Gerrit
comments/reviews/merges as contributions.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-14 Thread Gergo Tisza
Also, keep in mind that feedback on what recommendations you wanted /
expected to see but did not find is just as much worth as criticism (or
praise) of the existing ones.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 21:31 Chris Keating 

> >
> >
> > I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals
> and
> > I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those
> proposals.
> > I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually
> dismissed,
> > nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the wider community.
> I
> > would prefer to have constructive discussions, but I don't know how best
> to
> > do that at this point. I think that waiting a week or two for tempers to
> > cool might be good before engaging.
> Hi Pine - any comments on the Meta talk pages of the recommendations will
> definitely be read and help shape the next round of development of the
> recommendations. Thoughtful, considered comments are more helpful than
> angry ones, of course :)
> (I don't think most the working groups have much capacity to respond
> promptly, though!)
> Thanks,
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Announcing the Wikimedia Foundation's Technical Engagement team

2018-05-26 Thread Gergo Tisza
That is great news, congrats and thanks to all involved! Support of
Wikimedia/MediaWiki developers and software reusers has gone through a
quantum leap in the last year or so, and this is another solid step towards
creating a more healthy FLOSS ecosystem.

I'd also like to echo what Trey said: while some of the largest problems
with our open source ecosystem (such as documentation and the lack of
public roadmaps/guidace) have been settled or are being settled
reassuringly, code review remains a pain point. And while that's something
that will need the support of all Technology/Audiences teams, there is
still need for a team that can push for that; I hope Technical Engagement
will be empowered to do so.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Information on "Multiple failed attempts to log in" emails

2018-05-13 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:24 PM Nathan  wrote:

> I get hundreds of these a year (my user name, Nathan, seems to be a popular
> target). It would nice to be able to use some sort of multi-factor
> authentication, which is actually supported by OAUTH. However, it seems
> most projects (including en.wp) restrict use to accounts with elevated
> rights. Can anyone explain why these tools can't be made more widely
> accessible?

Lack of usability around recovering a lost second factor (and not losing it
in the first place) AIUI. Right now only developers can reset the second
factor; that does not scale to all Wikimedia editors.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2018-02-18 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I am considering establishing a Discourse installation myself and offering
> it to host Wikimedia-l or its successor

There are already two experimental Discourse instances: for trialing Discourse as a mailing list
alternative (see ) for trialing it as a developer
support channel (see )
The latter has more movement these days (it's seen as a more pressing
problem to solve, also it's a semi-official WMF project) but in any case
the technology side of introducing Discourse is well covered; it's the
social side (finding a small or new mailing list, convince them to move to
Discourse, collect feedback) that needs work.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Tool to help reaching community consensus

2017-12-09 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:51 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz <> wrote:

> Loomio offers free use for community cases. But it's non-free software, as
> far as I can see, but I didn't made deep inquiry. So I wondered if anyone
> was aware of a free software equivalent.

The WMF has used Loomio internally in the past for bottom-up generation and
vetting of proposals. Personally I found it unimpressive - it's basically a
forum software with flat threads and voting, and some UI choices to make
the voting part stand out more. I don't think it has any advantage over the
average wiki RfC, apart from not having to know how to edit wikitext.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A fundraising banner we'd like to try in a short test

2017-11-14 Thread Gergo Tisza
Hi Samuel,

thanks for being circumspect about the new banner design!

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Samuel Patton 

> If you have thoughts on this design, please share them here. There will be
> more opportunities for you to weigh in if this banner variant looks
> promising enough to keep testing.

It looks quite nice on a large monitor; a bit cramped but not tragic on my
laptop (1080px, but probably physical size matters more than resolution).
OTOH it looks quite confusing [1] with the three-column skin Timeless,
regardless of screen size. (See deployment plans [2]; not sure if any of
those wikis are involved in the fundraiser. If they are, I'd suggest
whitelisting the skin.)

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] New Developers Quarterly Report's first edition

2017-10-21 Thread Gergo Tisza
Thanks Srishti & DevRel team, that was interesting, and it's great to see
that developer retention gets the organizational focus it deserves.

Some comments on the document:

We currently struggle to keep track of information about new developers
> such as project they worked on, their contact details (e.g., Phabricator,
> Gerrit, and Github username), etc.

FWIW this is a problem with all developers, not just new ones. For example
after I find out who is the best person to ask about something, there isn't
really way to find out their IRC account. (Or vice versa, know who I've
just talked with on IRC.) Phabricator can be linked to and
wikitech but few people do both. And so on. The WMF has its private contact
list, but even that is not always updated, and it's unaccessible to
volunteers. It would be great to have a proper, public contact info
management system somewhere.

Re: surveys, it would be a missed opportunity to only survey new
developers. The limitation in that is that only a small fraction of them
become regulars, and it would be great to understand better what
personality trait or circumstance determines whether a given person stays
or leaves, but the only way to find that out is to survey people whom we
already know remained (or left) about their experiences as new developers.

Re: retention (the raw numbers for which can be found in T160430#3395405),
apparently year-on-year for Q3 2017 is interpreted as "(developers who
started in 2016 Q3 and were still active in 2017 Q3 / all developers who
started in 2016 Q3) / (developers who started in 2015 Q3 and were still
active in 2016 Q3 / all developers who started in 2015 Q3)" which is a
weird definition. YoY should be the difference in retention between two
full years, not between two quarters spaced one year apart.

One thing that jumps out looking at the list of retained developers is how
many of them are experienced Wikipedians (at a glance, something like
two-thirds?). Which I guess is not that surprising, but I wonder to what
extent is it reflected in the outreach strategy?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Srishti Sethi 

> Hello everyone,
> I would like to share the first edition of the New Developers Quarterly
> Report 
> that the Developer Relations team has produced. This report covers metrics,
> survey analysis and lessons learned from new developers focused activities
> in the previous quarter (July-September 2017).
> If you have questions and feedback that you would like to share with us,
> please add them on the discussion
> page.
> To receive a notification when a new report is published, subscribe here
> .
> We plan to release a report every quarter and take action items identified
> from the key findings for improving our existing methods and processes. The
> next release will be in January 2018.
> If you have any questions, comments, and concerns, we will be more than
> happy to hear them!
> Thanks,
> Srishti
> --
> Srishti Sethi
> Developer Advocate
> Technical Collaboration team
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wmfall mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-15 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
> editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is
> generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that
> goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need to
> review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not
> realistic numbers.

Come on. Did you even read the page you are talking about? Clearly you are
confusing it with the 100,000 Challange [1] which starts at the same time
but is a much larger project (the project page mentions a two-year

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks of new accounts in Angola?

2017-02-22 Thread Gergo Tisza
Maybe caused by and their ISP
using a proxy that handles IP-related headers in a very broken way?
If that's the case, they should be seeing something about private IP ranges
in the block message.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:16 AM, John  wrote:

> Let's wait and see what the IP info says. Might be  case of an ISP routing
> everyone thru a  single public IP.  Or it might be a range block due to ip
> hoping disruption.
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:11 AM Vi to  wrote:
> > Yep, none of them implied massive and preventive blocks. There's
> something
> > broken needing further investigations then.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2017-02-22 16:17 GMT+01:00 Yaroslav Blanter :
> >
> > > Did not we have some mass vandalism from Angola some time ago, and then
> > > measures had to be taken? I do not remember the details.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:57 AM, George William Herbert <
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Have them hit and tell us what shows up..,
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
> > > >> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been receiving complains via Facebook from people of Angola
> > about
> > > > not
> > > > > being able to create new accounts, some know something about it?
> They
> > > > > receive the as if the IP was blocked, however we receive more then
> 5
> > > > > complains just in the Commons FB page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any ideas?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> > > > >
> > > > > +55 11 979 718 884
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to:
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> >,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to:
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to:
> > > Unsubscribe:,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > and
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor safety and anonymity: ending IP address exposure?

2016-11-17 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Brion Vibber 

> 1) Eliminate IP address exposure for non-logged-in editors. Those editors
> should be either given a random, truly anonymous identifier, or required to
> create a pseudonym as a login.

I filed for that a while ago (but
then never got around to expand it). It would be technically
challenging but would unlock many interesting possibilities, such as proper
targeting of welcome messages / warning templates / thanks, blocking
anonymous editors without blocking the (possibly shared) IP they use, or
the ability to claim recent anonymous edits when you register.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wimedia on line?

2016-09-10 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Peter Southwood <> wrote:

> I have been unable to access Wikipedia, Wikivoyage or Meta since last
> night. Maybe 8 to 10 hours ago. Are the servers on line? Other internet
> seems OK
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

2016-05-02 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson 

> One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the
> Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different
> parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g.
> Analytics or Fundraising). The mentioned
> is a good way to
> collect all information about cookies

It really isn't. A policy document with very limited edit rights would be a
maintenance nightmare and never up to date. Indeed that document omits most
of the cookies used on the sites. And it never claims to list them all -
while that could be made more clear, the table is actually presented as a
list of examples .
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia candidate for the board

2016-03-03 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> So I would like to hear from Susanna how easy it would be for her to
> disobey direct instructions from her superiors related to her Wikimedia
> volunteer work, because *they* are clearly taking a keen interest in the
> development of Wikimedia projects in Armenia.

 Probably easy because board meetings are confidential so board members
under duress can always claim they tried to do whatever they were told to
but got voted down?

But that is certainly something to keep in mind when considering public
video streams of board meetings and similar ideas: that would make it
possible to put pressure on individual board members to act / not act in
specific ways.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] USA elections in real time - as viewed by Wikipedia users

2016-02-18 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Yuri Astrakhan 

> It will be updated whenever the page containing the template is
> re-generated (e.g. the page is changed, or someone does a null-save).  I
> heard that every page is forcefully regenerated if its older than 30 days,

Yes, and extension tags embedded in the page can reduce that, so if the
graph has a way of knowing how long the data will be valid, it can tell
that to the parser via ParserOutput::updateCacheExpiry.
As a hacky manual workaround, you can put {{CURRENTHOUR}} into the page to force hourly
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Better thankspam

2016-01-13 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Chris Keating 
> To me, "Hello" and "Thank you" are quite under-used words on this list (in
> the movement generally but particularly here) so I would prefer we didn't
> rule these emails out.
> After all, if we remove pile-on positive threads that contain little
> information then pile-on negative threads with equally little information
> will probably still remain.

I would much rather filter outrage spam :-) There is more of it, and unlike
thanks, it tends to have a demoralizing effect.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-28 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would
> appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license
> requirement.

By the same logic, to the extent Wikipedia takes its facts from non-free
external source, its free license would be a copyright violation. Luckily
for us, that's not how copyright works. Statements of facts can not be
copyrighted; large-scale arrangements of facts (ie. a full database)
probably can, but CC does not prevent others from using them without
attribution, just distributing them (again, it's like the GPL/Affero
difference); there are sui generis database rights in some countries but
not in the USA where both Wikipedia and most proprietary
reusers/compatitors are located, so relying on neighbouring rights would
not help there but cause legal uncertainty for reusers (e.g. OSM which has
lots of legal trouble importing coordinates due to being EU-based).

The generation of data always has a social context. Knowing where data come
> from is a good thing.

You probably won't find any Wikipedian who disagrees; verifiability is one
of the fundaments of the project. But something being good and using
restrictive licensing to force others to do it are very different things.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-27 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> What I hear in email from Andreas and Liam is not as much the propagation
> of the error (which I am sure happens with some % of the cases), but the
> fact that the original source is obscured and therefore it is hard to
> identify and correct errors, biases, etc. Because if the source of error is
> obscured, that error is that much harder to find and to correct. In fact,
> we see this even on Wikipedia articles today (wrong dates of births sourced
> from publications that don't do enough fact checking is something I came
> across personally). It is a powerful and important principle on Wikipedia,
> but with content re-use it gets lost. Public domain/CC0 in combination with
> AI lands our content for slicing and dicing and re-arranging by others,
> making it something entirely new, but also detached from our process of
> validation and verification. I am curious to hear if people think it is a
> problem. It definitely worries me.

​This conversation seems to have morphed into trying to solve some problems
that we are speculating Google might have (no one here actually *knows* how
the Knowledge Graph works, of course; maybe it's sensitive to manipulation
of Wikidata claims, maybe not). That seems like an entirely fruitless line
of discourse to me; if the problem exists, it is Google's problem to solve
(since they are the ones in a position to tell if it's a real problem or
not; not to mention they have two or three magnitudes more resources to
throw at it than the Wikimedia movement would). Trying to make our content
less free for fear that someone might misuse it is a shamefully wrong frame
of mind for and organization that's supposed to be a leader of the open
content movement, IMO.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

2015-10-09 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> For anyone following the transparent and open publication of the
> allocation and rationales for necessary WMF staff project account
> rights (i.e. not community managed), the wiki table on meta was
> updated this week, see [1] and the recent changes at [2].

And if you are interested in more rights being community managed, please
comment on :)

ps. something seems to be wrong with the date handling for the new
additions to
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy largely blocked by WMF fundraising

2015-08-31 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Craig Franklin 

> It has been my experience that site banners are the best way to reach
> casual readers who are not already integrated into the projects and
> existing communication channels.  This is why the Fundraising team run
> banners, rather than begging for money through Facebook and targeted talk
> page messages, I would imagine.  The communications channels you're
> referring to are excellent for reaching existing contributors, but when
> you're trying to reach new or casual contributors, a big banner at the top
> of articles can't be beat.

 My experience has been quite the opposite. The easiest, maybe, but the
conversion rate is poor - WLM is for photographers, and putting banners on
Wikipedia is not a particularly good way of reaching photographers. In WLM
Hungary a few years ago we had a deal with a photo sharing site (a crappy
deal, for other reasons), they ran the WLM banner, and it had a ten times
higher conversion rate (IIRC we counted people navigating to the upload
page as conversions). Even though they had way smaller audience than
Wikipedia, half the uploads ended up coming from them.

I would recommend organizers to be creative and not rely on CentralNotice
too much - reach out to photography discussion groups, photographer
associations, photo sharing sites and any other places where people with an
interest in taking pictures might turn up.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does Foundation have 3rd party standing against Harald Bischoff?

2015-07-31 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:34 AM, rupert THURNER

 Therefor allow me come back to my original question which I d love to have
 an answer from the wmf legal department, and cc-by expert readers:
 independent of this case, is there a technical possibility to put amateur
 reusers in future on a safe ground. Without the need of education. By
 automatically adding author and license info into the metadata of the
 image. If this is not enough attribution we should strive to have this kind
 of attribution accepted in a future version cc license.

It's not impossible but a hairy problem. It's being tracked under T5361
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Well-Tempered Clavier

2015-03-21 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Rob wrote:

 Fantastic!  Any idea if they will be recording book II of the Clavier as

*Are you going to work on bringing BWV 870—893 (Well-Tempered Clavier Book
2) to the audience next? Or would you explore something else?*

*Kimiko:* My next project, which will be an audio-only project, will be to
record the Chopin Préludes on a Pleyel piano that Chopin himself actually

It's an exciting project, especially when you realize that Chopin dedicated
the Préludes to Camille Pleyel, piano maker and owner of Salle Pleyel in
Paris, at the time Chopin lived there.

There will be a Kickstarter campaign for this project that launches very
very soon!

The whole interview is worth reading, lots of interesting stuff there.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Andrea Zanni

 My question is: what could we ask, as a community, to the WMF, o
 to chapters?
 Is there some tool/task/workflow that could receive help from Wikimedia?
 Maybe a new software, or some trusted agents in key position, or
 something else.
 What could speed up the volunteers work?

I put some ideas about such a tool at
Feedback would be appreciated.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-09 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:

 The team has pretty strong arguments why they don't want posts to be
 editable (the gist is, they fear that no other discussion system does
 this, and it will freak people out -- they see the introduction of a
 new system as a good opportunity to reset expectations).

I would argue that the best and most successful examples of knowledge
production oriented discussion systems allow the editing of posts by
others. Quora has that feature. Stackoverflow has that feature. The edit
might be sent through a review queue depending on your reputation, but from
the user's point of view that's not a big difference, and the bar is pretty
low - Stackoverflow allows direct editing from 2000 reputation points,
while access to the various queues (which is the closest equivalent to
being a Wikipedia admin) comes after 10,000 points. (An active user can
easily earn 100 or more points a week, so 2000 points mean a few months of
using the site.)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG

2014-08-01 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dan Garry wrote:

 Slides from all the presentations are available here:

 The grantmaking slides seem to be limited to WMF employees though.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

2014-07-11 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Todd Allen wrote:

 That doesn't, however, help the concern that millions of users are pulling

up the images without immediately seeing the license requirements and

author information.

To the contrary, Media Viewer displays the license, author and source as an
always visible part of the image. On a typical file page, you have to
scroll down to find any of this information; most users won't do that, if
what they are looking for is the image, and that is available without
scrolling. (It is well known in web usability that relatively
little attention is given to things above the fold; one of the main
benefits of Media Viewer is that it brings the most important things above

Also, many people might not use file pages simply because they are so slow. A
famous experiment by Google showed that
lowering loading speed by 200 ms resulted in 0.3% less interactions (on the
English Wikipedia's scale, that would be about 20,000 thumbnail clicks a
day). MediaViewer improves image loading time by a full second for the
median user.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

2014-07-10 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard wrote:

 I concur that there's a bit much reasoning from no data, and we could
 do with some.

 Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of
 people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate
 it. So yeah, real user surveys needed!

We do have user surveys for MediaViewer and did advertise them quite
prominently (see design notes
 and analysis of results; they ran
for about a month on enwiki). They turned out to be not so useful; there
was usually a large number of responses right after the launch, which were
predominantly negative, and a smaller number of predominantly positive
responses after that. That can be interpreted in very different ways -
could be change aversion, with most users warming up to the new interface
after a week or two; it could the effect of bugfixes and added features
(after every rollout we quickly fixed the most reported problems); it could
even be possible that most users don't like the tool and those who do wait
longer before responding for some reason. Also, editors are still way
overrepresented (in the enwiki survey results respondents self-identifying
as noneditors / casual editors / active editors are somewhere around 40% /
40% / 20%, while the actual ratio is more like 99% / 0.99% / 0.1%), with
the more underrepresented groups having a significantly more positive
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

2014-04-27 Thread Gergo Tisza
Risker risker.wp@... writes:

 There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement
 stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder -
 one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished -
 to usurp the role of staff analysis.  I'm really sad that you can't see
 that, Dariusz.  You're better off having the staff do the analysis of
 everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as
 it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC.

So apparently it is less of a conflict of interest for WMF departments to be 
evaluated for funding by their colleagues in the other side of the same room 
than by WMDE? This is really getting ridiculous. One can argue that the FDC 
asking movement entities to analyze the funding of other movement entities is 
a bad thing, but it has been the status quo ever since the FDC came into 
being, so asking WMDE to evaluate WMF is perfectly in line with past 

There might be legitimate reasons for preferring that the WMF keep all the 
funding-recommendation-making power, instead of trying to distribute that 
power within the movement, but if that's the case, you should think about 
what those are instead of making red herring arguments about conflicts of 
interest. (Also, if that's the case, what would be the point of having the 
FDC? It was created exactly to diminish the role of WMF, as you put it, and 
make the decision-making about funding a more collaborative process.)

Wikimedia-l mailing list