from:"Wil Sinclair"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

2015-11-27 Thread Wil Sinclair

Gergo, do you mind if people continue discussing this? I'm finding it
very interesting and fruitful. I hadn't thought through these issues
before, and there are likely to be others on this list who haven't
either.

Best!
,Wil

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Gergo Tisza  wrote:
> 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: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

2015-11-24 Thread Wil Sinclair

Actually, as an employee of the WMF, Asaf may be able to contribute
here. Asaf, this is an issue that you feel the organization you that
pays you to help fulfill its mission must address. How are you going
to lead within the WMF to make sure it gets addressed?

Best.
,Wil

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Isarra Yos  wrote:
> On 24/11/15 09:47, Asaf Bartov wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>>> Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin
>>> to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of
>>> what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
>>>
>> Yes.  I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions.  Talk is cheap.
>>
>> A.
>
>
> Certainly, but asking someone to reword a thing doesn't help with the
> actions either.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

2015-11-19 Thread Wil Sinclair

No, I'm right here. Standing up for what I believe in, just like I stand up
for the principles I value everywhere, including IRC, on-wiki, and off-. It
seems y'all know where to find my opinion. So, if you're interested, go
look. If you're not, then feel free to just put me down here, as per the
ush.

Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look
at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:28 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Wil Sinclair wrote:
> >With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
> >whatsoever.
> >
> >I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
> >taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
> >leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
> >mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
> >then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
> >*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
>
> If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a
> few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Most obnoxious banner yet

2015-01-12 Thread Wil Sinclair

I think it's a matter of common sense that we shouldn't ask for more
money unless we can credibly demonstrate with stuff like success
metrics and improving trends that we can spend the money we've already
been given effectively.

Risker's comments made me wonder, however, about the more specific
issue of how the WMF is measuring the cost/benefit of banner displays.
The benefit should be fairly easy to figure out as denominated in
dollars- roughly speaking, it would probably look something like the
total amount raised over a defined period divided by the number of
banner displays during that period. But what about those much more
subtle and potentially lagging costs? I assume that the WMF is
measuring stuff like session lengths and return rates. Is the WMF
tracking on anything else for non-logged in users?

In any case, what I would most like to see is a comparison of graphs
of such metrics over the course of a full campaign. It seems like we
all agree that the banners are annoying, but is there really a
measurable banner fatigue phenomenon among our readers? For example,
can we point out a distinct point of diminishing returns, beyond which
the slopes of one or both graphs significantly steepens? If anyone has
this data for the current or past campaigns, please forward it to me.
I'll try some different visualizations that get past the dollars signs
to the true cost of prolonged panhandling.

Alternatively, we could pivot to a street performance model by getting
the article on Thomas Jefferson to juggle fire batons and spray
painting the article on Popping silver. After Jimmy finishes his
extended plastic-bucket drum solo and we've warmed them up with a few
mediocre jokes, we could pass around the banner for donations. It
would probably only work on the tourists, tho.

,Wil

 This is $10.6 million more than the $20 million fundraising goal indicated
 in the blog post. (At any rate, that's the sum I get; I'd welcome anyone
 double-checking my math.)


 There is no scenario I can come up with where this is actually a good
 result.  Sure, an extra $10.6 million might be nice in the bank, but it
 massively exceeds budget.  The fundraiser met its goal, with plenty to
 spare, on December 17.  And yet we put our readers and our users through
 another two weeks of fundraising.  Given that we were already really
 pushing the goodwill of the broad Wikimedia community (that includes the
 users of our products)well, as I say, this is not a good result.
 People were putting Wikipedia on Adblock because of those banners, and they
 were doing it long after the goal had been reached.

 I'd say I was speechless, but actually I am working extremely hard to hold
 my tongue here, awaiting an explanation for this.  And yes, I think the
 Wikimedia community deserves to know why this happened.

___
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] Placebook Wiki Project Proposal

2014-12-10 Thread Wil Sinclair

I'd like to know more about the proposal; is there a page on Meta that
describes it in more detail?

Specifically, I'd like to know:

* You mention platform. Are you proposing a new top-level wiki
project that would require critical mass to succeed?
* Wouldn't this be a good fit for additions to the existing data
schemas in Wikidata? Even if you have specific geo-oriented
functionality in mind, it seems the current way to do this would be to
build out tool on WMF Labs.
* Is there a free dataset mapping events/people/places to coordinates
that could be used to jumpstart the initiative?
* I seem to remember seeing coords as structured data on some
Wikipedia articles. Are there existing efforts to join/build on?

I ask these questions in this forum, because I think that physically
mapping data on Wikipedia and other projects is a great idea and could
have a large and broad impact across all WMF-hosted projects. I look
forward to the day that I can query our entire set of articles by
what's happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and *where* it
all went down.

Best.
,Wil

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joe Aeberhard joe_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 Hello,
 I just wanted to promote a project proposal that I'd really welcome any 
 feedback on - PlaceBook Wiki - Meta

 |   |
 |   |   |   |   |   |
 | PlaceBook Wiki - MetaCreation of a platform that would allow people to 
 create wiki-type entries to record both historical, public narrative and 
 personal memory and, by fixing these with GPS co-ordinates, content could be 
 shared through the physical landscape in which it occurred. |
 |  |
 | View on meta.wikimedia.org | Preview by Yahoo |
 |  |
 |   |


 The essential idea behind my proposal is that we could open up novel and 
 productive ways of accessing knowledge about our physical environment by 
 allowing the wiki posts to be indexed by GPS co-ordinates, so that we build 
 up a catalogue of information about specific places. This information could 
 be about matters of general historical importance, but also it could be much 
 more broad than that and provide a way for individuals to record their own 
 personally significant events that occurred at a specific location, which 
 would provide more of a folk history of a place too.

 Through seeing what has occurred and who has lived in that location we 
 potentially create a new way for people to engage with their environment and 
 hopefully provide new narratives for their sense of personal and community 
 identity.

 Anyhow, it seems very likely to me that systems similar to the one I've 
 proposed will be created in the near future, so I am hoping that an 
 organisation like the Wiki Foundation could be involved in the beginning, so 
 that there is a chance that a community based, not-for-profit ethos could get 
 a strong foothold and prevent what could be a very valuable resource being 
 controlled solely by commercial imperatives.

 Any feedback on this would be great, as I would like to hear your views, both 
 critical and supportive.
 Joe


 ___
 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] Damon Sicore joins WMF as Vice President of Engineering

2014-09-30 Thread Wil Sinclair

Hi Damon, looking forward to meeting you. I'd like to welcome you not
only to WMF, but to the wikimedia-l list. I encourage you to join the
discussions here, even if you feel like you don't have the deep
expertise and broad community context that a lot of the big shots who
post here may have. I don't, and that hasn't stopped me. :) I'm sure
everyone will be happy to help you get up to speed. No doubt others
here would agree with me when I say that your active participation in
the community is at least as important as your responsibilities within
the WMF. In short, the WMF and our community are not sold separately.
They are the yang yin that have made the Wikimedia projects what they
are today, and one can't exist without the other.

I'm not one to tip-toe around taboos, so I'll directly address
something that's important but rarely discussed on this list.
Sometimes people get upset and post things here or onwiki that hurt
feelings or come off as confrontational. In fact, you'll see the
occasional post that has no purpose beyond putting people down and/or
making them feel unwelcome. It has been directed at one time or
another to pretty much every highly active and/or high-profile
Wikipedian. Please understand that this is a natural behavior for
passionate volunteers who have done something extraordinary and want
to make sure that their hard work continues to have a positive impact
in our world.

Our community members have set the bar pretty high by providing
content that the entire world depends on, and their high expectations
from the WMF and the Mediawiki team to provide the best tools possible
for displaying and manipulating that content are well deserved. When
I've found myself in the crosshairs, this thought puts me back in the
big picture and helps me find a productive path forward.

I hope this helps, and I'm looking forward to your first post on this
list. I'm numbering myself among those who are looking forward to your
first post.

Best.
,Wil



On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Dear all,

 We are excited to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation now has a Vice
 President of Engineering. Damon Sicore will be filling this vital role.
 Please join us in welcoming him to the team.

 The VPE role will be crucial to further developing and maintaining the
 technology that supports the very core of the Wikimedia movement, and
 ensuring the development, scale, and stability of the MediaWiki
 architecture.


 Damon joins us as part of planned growth of our product and engineering
 teams, first announced in November 2012. As we have grown, we need
 dedicated focus on product and engineering as separate departments, to
 ensure development of best practices like performance engineering,
 continuous delivery, A/B testing, software re-architecture, UI/UX work, and
 user research. Erik Moeller, who filled the role of VP for both product and
 engineering since 2011, led in the creation of this new role and was
 essential to the search process.  From today onward, Erik will focus on his
 role as VP of Product and Strategy and Deputy Director of the WMF, while
 Damon will take over leadership of the Engineering team; both will report
 to me as part of the c-level team.

 Damon has a unique track record of managing large platform rollouts using
 distributed teams like ours, while understanding the essential role of
 community contributions and working in a transparent, open source
 environment. These skills and experiences will be invaluable in his work
 here at the Foundation. It’s unusual to find someone who understands us so
 well, and so I want to thank the many people from across the organization,
 especially in the engineering, product, and human resources teams, who have
 been involved in making this search successful.

 We are very happy to have Damon on board. His proven track record of
 managing large platform rollouts using distributed teams like ours, while
 understanding the essential role of community contributions and working in
 a transparent, open source environment, is unique and invaluable as part of
 our movement.

 We’ll be sending around a copy of the press release shortly. You’ll also be
 be able to meet Damon, and ask him questions, this Thursday at our monthly
 Metrics Meeting
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings.
 Please join us there!

 Please join me in welcoming Damon.

 Lila
 ___
 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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Lighter Side of the Movement

2014-09-17 Thread Wil Sinclair

Yeah, uncyclopedia is a good suggestion for one possible form of
content, but what I'm talking about is really much more about having a
good time onwiki by poking fun at ourselves and putting things in to
perspective.

Someone sent me a link to this project privately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Department_of_Fun.
That basically includes all the ideas I had thought up + some. In
fact, what I'm describing is what might result from an regular
publication or section of a publication produced by this project.
There are some ~280 members listed on that page, though many are
inactive. It's hard to tell which might still be relevant and/or
appropriate, but the hundreds of articles categorized as Wikipedia
humor that can be reached from that page would provide an great pool
of content to keep a newsletter running with a consistent size and
format when there isn't enough new content produced for an entire
issue.

Does anyone know what this project is currently doing to raise the
visibility of its content and activities? Has a regular publication
been considered or tried, then decided against for some reason? It
seems like a pretty natural fit. The original creator seems to have
gone inactive. Does anyone know who is leading this effort today? I'll
ask these questions on the project's talk page, too, but if you're
currently involved or are also interested in contributing to a
completely unencyclopedic effort like this, please contact me so we
can coordinate efforts.

Coincidentally, when I eye up the participation levels on this project
and other WP humor projects (there are several more listed near the
bottom of that page) with some rough metrics, activity seems to have
peaked around the same time as the number of active WP editors.
Correlation doesn't imply causation one way or the other, but it is
definitely a coincidence worth noting.

Ta's.
,Wil (aka wllm)

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Cristian Consonni
kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
 Il 17/Set/2014 09:50 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com ha scritto:

 The place that you are searching for exists. It is called Uncyclopedia:
 http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

 But please note that Unencyclopedia is not a project of the Wikimedia
 Foundation.

 C
 ___
 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] The Lighter Side of the Movement

2014-09-17 Thread Wil Sinclair

And here I was, wondering aloud if anyone had thought of something
like this before. :D As it turns out, Wikipedia has a rich history of
not taking itself too seriously.

Adding your link to some others efforts linked to by the Department of
Fun I've got:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Llama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Department_of_Fun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiFun_Police, which inspired
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grey_Knight/Wikipedia_Fun_Police,
not to be confused with the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kausill/Anti-Fun_Police (splitters!)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Apathetic_Wikipedians
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikipedians_Who_Dislike_Making_Broad_Judgments_About_the_Worthiness_of_a_General_Category_of_Article,_and_Who_Are_in_Favor_of_the_Deletion_of_Some_Particularly_Bad_Articles,_but_That_Doesn%27t_Mean_They_Are_Deletionists,
or AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDAYBCADSPBATDMTAD for short
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day

Unfortunately, most of them are either completely inactive or
significantly less active than they have been in years past.

I think this is a tradition worth bringing back in a big way. To kick
things off, I'll reach out on the defunct projects' talk pages to see
if there are stragglers who might be interested in helping out with a
new or renewed attempt at humor; if appropriate, I'll help clean up
behind myself by archiving inactive pages. I'd prefer to kickstart
things by becoming part of a larger effort like Signpost, so I'll
approach the editors of the Signpost to see if they'd have any
interest in what would be the Wikipedian equivalent of a funnies page.

Lastly, this is getting down to specifics that are better taken
elsewhere. If you'd like to follow along or take part mail me offlist
at w...@wllm.com, and I'll let you know once the effort has found an
onwiki home. As always, suggestions and ridicule welcome, but please
help me to continue the discussion offlist by mailing me directly
about matters that aren't of general interest to this audience.

Thanks.
,Wil

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:19 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Wil Sinclair wrote:
I'm wondering if there is place where the lighter side of individual
Wikimedians and our movement can be shown front and center. What I'm
talking about would leave the controversial issues for wikimedia-l and
other fora, instead presenting stuff like funny stats about our
wikiprojects surfaced through clever metrics, the weirdest of the
weird factoids that we uncover in the process of documenting our
universe, interviews of Wikipedians on stuff they do beyond editing
wikis, and humorous essays that might venture in to good natured
lampooning of the movement. I'm already writing an article about the
next software feature to be enabled: Project Fish Bicycle. It will add
such features as full vertical reflections pioneered by Apple 10 years
ago under all articles, taking up only half the final rendered page
while compromising on a few minor existing article features, like
vowels. Think The Onion or your alma mater's humor publication:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_humor_magazines. With a lot of
poor attempts at humor, and the occasional viral grand slam.

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

Well, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Llama. I feel like
The Signpost used to include more humor(ous) content as well. There was a
recurring cartoon called WikiWorld for a while, anyway.

Newsletters are typically delivered via MassMessage
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MassMessage) these days. Anyone can
start one!

MZMcBride

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

[Wikimedia-l] The Lighter Side of the Movement

2014-09-16 Thread Wil Sinclair

Howdy all,

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

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

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

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

Toodles.
,Wil

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015

2014-09-12 Thread Wil Sinclair

Actually, I'd like to speak up on the name.

I imagine the name reflected the enthusiasm of its first attendees,
but Wikimania has all the wrong connotations in today's world. True
mania is marked by little control, commitment, and rest. It also
implies that attendees have to be dyed-in-the-wool, unquestioning, and
supremely devoted editors. I hope that's not the case. I doubt it's
more welcoming for highly enthusiastic beginners, but it might
convince casual editors who are more interested in the topics covered
in our articles than the project itself that it's not for them.

Moreover, mania is no joke. Some people suffer greatly from disorders
like bipolar depression. We wouldn't call a conference WikiADHD (which
is, as I have been very public about, something I suffer from). It's
uncool to make light of it in any way, even when unintended.

We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference
something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe
WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.

,Wil

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other questions
 concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation instead of
 speaking of a name.

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

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

2014-09-10 Thread Wil Sinclair

 On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Hoi,
 Asap stands for as soon as possible. It is obvious that there I do not
 like the talk pages at all. That does not mean that it makes sense to
 replace them tomorrow.

 I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely get rid of talk pages and understand
 what it is EXACTLY what the cost benefit is of such a change. When you talk
 about detailed watchlists in the context of Talk pages I have no clue
 what you are on about. It does not make sense to me at all.

 When a specific way of working insists on talk pages, it means that the
 associated workflow has to be revisited and changed with urgency. It cannot
 be permitted that special interests take the whole of the much needed
 change hostage. Leaving this material unchecked ... is FUD. It is not an
 argument that prevents change, at most it means that a different mechanism
 has to be designed for that special interest.
 Thanks,
  GerardM


 Gerard,

 It would really help me if you would go a little lower on the hyperbole. As
 soon as possible is indeed not tomorrow. It's today. Only we both agree
 that would be a very bad idea. What you probably mean is As soon as a
 reasonable replacement for processes and talk pages can be found - but
 when I phrase it like that, it becomes open for discussion what that
 reasonable replacement could be. It makes it very hard to keep taking your
 posts seriously if you keep speaking in such hyperbole.

 --Martijn

I've got to +1 Martijn on this one. But I'm a little more concerned
with cut the crap, because the crap could easily be interpreted as
other people's ideas. While this kind of language is rather mild
compared to some other posts I've seen to this list, I think that it
is imperative that we all stay constructive and open to each other's
ideas when we talk about Flow. Flow needs a deep and broad community
consensus to what would probably amount to the biggest single change
in the history of the project for the day-to-day collaboration amongst
editors that is so vital to our success. Let's face it, the kind of
challenge ahead is something this community hasn't surmounted in the
last few years, and so far people on this list has done a great job
staying constructive in the discussion.

I want discussion oriented software to happen. Gerard, your messages
have great substance that can get us closer to our goal. Please don't
push it out of reach because of something as easy to change as style.
Thanks in advance for considering the rest of us who'd like to see
this happen in your posts.

And thanks for the forbearance of everyone else. The sooner
meta-discussions about the nature of our discourse are unnecessary,
the happier I'll be, as I'll feel like I can afford to spend all of my
post allowance on the actual substance of the issues.

,Wil

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

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

2014-09-10 Thread Wil Sinclair

Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk
pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because
they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for
veterans?

Regardless, you make a strong argument for keeping a meta-document
that spans threads and/or should be more persistent. A lot of this
stuff seems indispensable to recording decisions and linking to stuff
that backs them up, avoiding constant rehashing of issues. My concern
is how such a documents could be tied to pertinent threads in the
discussion oriented software. Maybe we could create anchors in such a
document that could make it easier for the right sections to be
displayed alongside threads that reference them in the UI.

I know that LT splits a page and allows for normal editing above it,
but threads aren't well connected to content above them and only get
more disconnected with time as they get pushed down. What if we had
anchors and both the discussion and the meta-document acted like they
are in two horizontal or vertical iframes so we could view them at the
same time (with Javascript mojo we don't need to use iframes anymore,
of course)? The mobile experience could be different, since presumably
there is less real estate than on a desktop.

This is a tricky problem to solve from a UX perspective, but it maybe
Tim's right that we don't necessarily have to compromise flexibility
for structure.

,Wil

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote:
 Having listened for the last week or two, here's what I'm getting as the
 WMF perspective as the three primary things attempting to be remedied with
 Flow:

 1) Newcomers and casual contributors have a very hard time using wiki
 markup language and find it difficult to participate in talk pages. Flow
 will be more intuitive for them.

 2) The rendition of talk page discussion threads on mobile devices is bad.
 With more people using mobile devices and fewer using laptops, this problem
 is only going to become worse over time. Flow will alleviate this problem.

 3) Wikitext becomes a sprawling mess on large talk pages, leading to vast
 walls of tl;dr text a morass of unsearchable archives. Flow will better
 organize discussions.

 Is this a fair representation of the rationale behind Flow? Am I missing
 some main (as opposed to utopian and theoretical) rationale for the change?


 =


 Now here is a list of the things which talk pages currently do:

 1) Mark articles as significant to various work projects and track the
 content grade for each.

 2) Provides details and links for BLP and other policies related to the
 subject.

 3) Records the history of each page with respect to Articles For Deletion
 challenges, Good Article peer review histories, etc.

 4) Maintains a record of actual and potential Conflict of Interest
 declarations.

 5) Registers reader comments about the content.

 6) Provides a forum for editor debates over content, sometimes including
 large blocks of proposed or removed text and including at times binding
 RFCs over content and detailed merger discussions.

 7) Accumulates requested edits for protected articles.


 In addition, User-talk pages:

 8) Gather warning templates and notification messages about editing
 problems.

 9) Serves as a de facto email system for communication between editors.


 

 My outside the box suggestion is this: it seems likely that at least some
 of the vital functions of talk pages are going to be crushed by Flow and
 the mass archiving that its adoption will entail. Perhaps it would be
 better for a new third page to be generated for each article:

 MAINSPACE PAGE (the article itself)

 ABOUT THIS PAGE (templates and permanent records including 1, 2, 3, 4 above)

 DISCUSS THIS PAGE (the actual talk page for discussion of content and
 requested edits)


 Bear in mind that I still have no confidence that Flow will be superior to
 wikitext in any but the most superficial ways. I do suggest, however, that
 some future permutation of this or some other new discussion format has a
 better chance of acceptance by the core volunteer community if it preserves
 many essential functions of talk pages unaltered.


 Tim Davenport
 Carrite on En-WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO
 Corvallis, OR  (USA)
 ___
 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] Feedback with Android on Commons

2014-09-09 Thread Wil Sinclair

Hi Pete. I agree that the app could do more to explain to the user
what is appropriate for commons. And I'd hate to see this app
sunsetted, because it makes it very convenient to snap pictures and
upload them in a few gestures. A couple of questions, tho:

* Pete, there's already a tour when you open the app for the first
time. Have you created an enhancement bug in bugzilla to add an
explanation of commons and what is appropriate to upload? It's
important that we trap great feedback like this in a workflow.

* Everyone, if the app is sunsetted, does anyone know if the
functionality will be added to another app? I see this functionality
as tremendously useful, and I'd love to see sound recording and video
(not sure if video is already covered or not) supported, as well.

Thanks.
,Wil

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
 As an experienced user, the Commons app is tremendously useful (when it
 doesn't crash). But as a Commons curator, I see a steady stream of test
 uploads and the like -- things that are utterly and completely unrelated
 to our educational mission -- that require a great deal of volunteer
 resources to process. The vast majority are tagged as mobile uploads.

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

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

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

 Pete

 On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:41 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
 wrote:

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

 Hi Erik,

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

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

 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 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] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-09 Thread Wil Sinclair

I don't know how many people here remember their first discussion on
WP, but I do. Probably because it was less than 6 months ago. :)

My first impression was you have got to be kidding me. I was annoyed
I had to learn a new markup dialect, but that didn't deter me. Since I
had some experience with wiki software when it was still cool about a
decade ago, I chalked it up to the Weltanschauung that a wiki can do
almost anything. I've always thought that there is a clause missing
from this mindset: and 99% of that it does poorly. I think that
discussions easily find themselves in that 99%. But I wonder if there
is a way that Flow can sit on top of wiki markup; many document
oriented databases back discussion software, so why can't we reuse all
the work done in formatting, version, and handling conflicts for
discussions? Is it possible that discussions can be implemented
without changing the data layer at all?

FWIW, I signed my first comment by hand. I missed the comments about
sigs in the wikitext editor interface. If it weren't for my family
situation, I'm pretty sure I would have bailed. In any case, it was
much easier to engage at WO, and that was partly- but not mostly- due
to the fact that they run discussion software over there.

,Wil


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
 On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
 The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
 something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
 didn't come into existence in a vacuum.

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

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

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

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

 -- Marc


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 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] Open call for Individual Engagement Grant proposals

2014-09-09 Thread Wil Sinclair

Where is it failing for you? The popup form works for me on both
Safari and Chrome on OSX 10.8.5. I didn't go through the whole wizard,
tho, because I didn't want to add dummy data to the database.

,Wil

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Nasir Khan nasir8...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear Siko,

 Create a new idea button is not working in the
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Ideas page and Try a new
 tool to create your proposal button in the
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG page.

 I faced this form the Firefox and Chrome browser in Windows 8. is it only
 me who is facing this issue?



 --
 *Nasir Khan Saikat*
 www.nasirkhn.com


 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 Greetings! The Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grants program is
 accepting proposals for funding new experiments from September 1st to 30th.
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG

 Your idea can improve Wikimedia projects by building a new tool or gadget,
 organizing a better process on your wiki, conducting research on an
 important issue, or providing other support for community-building. Whether
 you need $200 or $30,000 USD, Individual Engagement Grants can cover your
 own project development time in addition to funding for a team to help you.
 The program has a flexible schedule and reporting structure, and
 Grantmaking staff are there to support you through all stages of the
 process.

 Do you have have a good idea, but you are worried that it isn't developed
 enough for a grant?  Put it into the IdeaLab, where volunteers and staff
 can give you advice and guidance on how to bring it to life. 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab  Also, IEG will be hosting
 three Hangout Sessions for real-time discussions to help you make your
 proposal better - the first will happen on September 16th. 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Events#Upcoming_events

 For inspiration, you can read more about past projects 
 https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/individual-engagement-grants/ that
 received
 funding or review open proposals 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-reviewing. We are excited
 to see some of the new ways your grant ideas can support our community and
 make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects.

 Submit your proposal in September! 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-apply

 Warm regards,
 Siko

 --
 Siko Bouterse
 Head of Individual Grants
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

 sboute...@wikimedia.org

 *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
 sum of all knowledge. *
 *Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the edit button today,
 and help us make it a reality!*
 ___
 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] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair

 Your suggestion is to be dismissed with prejudice because it is so
 obviously wrong in so many ways.. I do not care about a possible potential
 of a broken system at all I may want to think about features that are
 actively used in this broken system.
 Thanks,
   GerardM

I won't be dismissing it, because Diego makes some very good points
and articulates the concerns that many in the community have expressed
well.

Dismissing his ideas won't make them go away. I just hope that
dismissing them with that prejudice you mentioned doesn't make him go
away.

,Wil

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

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

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair

Let me begin with this: my preferences lie far closer to yours,
Gerard, than Diego's. I believe that we have a document oriented
system that works well for stuff like encyclopedic content. But I
think that we should be conducting our discussions in a discussion
oriented system. That doesn't necessarily mean more structure- after
all, Wikipedia pages are almost always highly structured documents-
but it certainly requires '''different''' structure that might be
enforced by software as opposed to editorial convention.

 The central point  Diego made starts from is that the current broken system
 has a POTENTIAL for unstructured, unaccountable changes by whomever.

 You do not build on a fundament that is collapsing as it is. A system that
 is manifestly broken particularly on the one platform where our new users
 are; mobile.

I think Diego has a great point. By relying on software to enforce
structure in our discussions, we will rely more on the developers.
Let's take something that we all have a stake in as an example. In the
beginning, there will be inevitably be bugs as the system is rolled
out, and we will rely on the developers to fix them. Without the
flexibility of our document oriented system, there may be no
workarounds. That is something that may be mitigated with more
flexibility built in to the system.

Diego touches on the need for flexibility within the discussion for
many use cases, and I don't consider any of his requirements mutually
exclusive with a discussion oriented system, as such. He seems to
believe that we haven't held sufficient discussion on critical issues
like the right tradeoff between flexibility for editors and structure
for discussions. This sentiment has been expressed by several
Wikipedians in this forum.

Without broad consensus that this discussion has been held, and the
WMF has turned legitimate and sensible community needs and desires in
to Flow requirements, Flow will not succeed. If Diego's sentiment is
shared by a significant contingent of Wikipedians, we need to back up
and do this right. No biggies. It's far more important to have the
community invested in the success of Flow than to work towards
deadlines. If we're concerned about getting this done soon for use
cases such as those for mobile, we can accelerate the schedule as a
community by helping the WMF. There is no shortage of opportunities to
help at all levels of technical expertise.

 If we are to take arguments seriously, please explain why we should in this
 instance. If dismissing such ideas makes him go away AFTER it has been
 explained why the arguments do not wash.. Well, the best that can be said
 is that it makes the conversation easier, it does not change the quality of
 the arguments at all.

Even if I were to disagree with Diego on certain issues, I won't be
dismissing his ideas. Not because I want to recruit him as some sort
of ally for the next battle. And not because dismissing them will not
make these ideas go away, tho that is a very good reason not to
dismiss them. I won't be dismissing them because Diego is a thoughtful
Wikipedian, and all Wikipedians deserve respect and a chance to be
heard out.

As a post script, I see that Diego wrote a thorough and de-escalating
response. Huge +1 from me on that score. And then he did something
that only the strongest of souls seem to be able to do: he apologized
publicly for something he felt he could have done better. Diego, you
have my deepest respect, and please keep on keeping on in this forum
and elsewhere.

,Wil

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endless drama around solutions to non-problems as misdirection

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair

The way I see it, there is something each and every one of us can do
to help with attrition right now with no interference from or
dependencies on anyone else.

We can treat each other with the respect that we all deserve. Before
hitting send or Save Page, we can ask ourselves if we've said what we
wanted to say in the least confrontational manner possible. Have we
kept in mind that we're addressing real people and not 2 dimensional
usernames? Have we considered how our points may be taken from a
different perspective than our own?

I commit to practicing respect to the best of my ability in all of my
Wikimedia communications, right here and right now, for this entire
list to see. Gerard, will you join me in this commitment? Will anyone
else join me in this commitment?

,Wil

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hoi,
 The lack of usability that is inherent in the current tools is enough to
 drive me away from editing Wikipedia. At to this the atmosphere that is all
 too often just not interested in anything but vested interests and you have
 a cocktail that is powerful enough to have me respond to your challenge.
 Our environment is long overdue on an update and, this is really hard to
 do. I welcome the much anticipated editor and media viewer. Sure, it is not
 the finished product yet but it has way more finesse then what we had
 before.

 What distracts me most is the constant bickering that suggests that we are
 not moving forward or that fails to appreciate the extend that we need
 change in order to remain relevant with our content. We find that new
 editors are mainly from a mobile environment (i include tablets here) and
 they are NOT attached to the old ways some aim to have us stick to at all
 costs.

 We need to change and our aim should be to remain relevant for the next
 decennia.
 Thanks,
   GerardM


 On 6 September 2014 10:54, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Where does the idea that user interface changes to the system which
 has already produced the most monumental reference work in the history
 of humanity are going to help with its only actual problem, that
 people aren't sufficiently inclined to stick around and maintain it?

 If there was any evidence that VE or Media Viewer or Flow will make
 the projects more attractive to volunteers, I'm sure we would have
 heard it by now. But there isn't. Nor is there any evidence that any
 of the several Editor Engagement projects have made a dent in
 volunteer attrition rates, despite their success in encouraging tiny
 subsets of very new editors to contribute a few minutes more work.

 The present set of dramatic distractions from attention to the
 vanishing volunteer corps only highlights that Foundation leadership
 has no ability to focus on the only strategic goal they haven't
 achieved: retaining volunteers. Because it is so much easier to
 pretend that readers need WYSIWYG or a lightbox or can't figure out
 how to indent replies; since readership numbers aren't an actual
 problem (when mobile users are added to desktop pageviews) this
 guarantees the false appearance of success in the eyes of everyone who
 doesn't see through the transparent cop-out. Where is the evidence
 that the status quo user interface from 2005 would not have done just
 as well in every measurable aspect of movement success?

 Steven Walling wrote:
 ...
  We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly
  try to provide more free time or money to editors

 That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently
 been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the
 Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a
 per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation
 engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't
 seen any.

 When the Foundation spends on copyright advocacy, those initiatives
 directly try to provide more economic empowerment to the small
 fraction of contributors who stand to benefit from whatever additional
 government documents or panorama images they hope to free up. But
 volunteers who want to update information on the side effects of
 commonly prescribed drugs get nothing.

 When the Foundation spends on attempts to oppose the Trans Pacific
 Partnership, those initiatives directly try to provide more free time
 and money to the small subset of editors threatened by lengthening of
 copyright terms. But editors who want to help translate introductory
 material foundational to engineering skills literacy get nothing.

 Who at the Foundation bears the responsibility for deciding which of
 initiatives that might benefit the real needs of vanishing volunteers
 are funded, and why aren't they held accountable for their record
 since 2007?

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

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

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair

I composed the following as part of a longer message, but I decided
not to send it unless others were having similar issues since I'm on
track to exceed my monthly allowance of posts here ;):

There's one thing in this discussion that troubles me greatly.

We've got a treasure trove of information/feedback in this thread from
some of the people who are most knowledgable about the software and
the problems it's trying to solve. Are we sure we're capturing all of
the take-aways somewhere? How about the unresolved concerns? Is
anything getting lost in transient discussions here or elsewhere?

I set out to answer this myself.

First, I looked for the talk page on Flow. Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flowaction=history
The first things to strike me are that it is very long, very active,
very unstructured, and archived across 10 pages and counting. Hmmm.
Same questions as above, applied to exponentially more threads.

Next, I went to bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=Flowlist_id=342315product=MediaWikiproduct=MediaWiki%20extensionsproduct=Wikimedia
. Much more structured and captures some requirements in a workflow.
Not so good for discussing higher-level issues, however. Moreover,
that doesn't seem to be what the development team is keeping their
backlog in. Off to trello. . .

I'm an experienced development manager that has been evangelizing
agile programming of all stripes since 2001, and it took my searching
the Flow talk page and clicking on a specific task to figure out how
to list the backlog in trello. I think this is the right link in case
you're looking for it yourself:
https://trello.com/b/HD0lBssr/flow-backlog. A lot of these items link
back to bugzilla and to another Flow discussion page. . .

. . .on the MediaWiki site conducted in Flow itself:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Flow. I think I'll stop here,
although there are more places where Flow is discussed, and I haven't
even gotten in to the mainspace pages that are edited by the Wikimedia
and MediaWiki developers to communicate outwards to the broader
community.

The summary of the tl;dr version is that it seems like there are
opportunities to improve the discussion of Flow, starting with
conducting it in fewer places and adding all takeaways as requirements
to a workflow we can all track. The next step would be a discussion
around prioritizing these requirements. Has this been done for Flow
with full community involvement? If not, I think the WMF should take
the lead on this one and show the community that it has taken the
lessons from the recent MV experience and other poorly received
rollouts to heart.

WMF, I appeal to you directly when I ask you to get us more involved,
and, moreover, get us more invested in the success of Flow starting
now by leading a discussion too many on this list and elsewhere have
said hasn't happened and/or hasn't been heeded.

,Wil

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi,

Is there a page somewhere where I can see a detailed functional
specification of this product, showing how it'll work, what
functions/features it will include in it's MVP state, and such? I know
about the page on Mediawiki ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow ) that
talks about things in generalities and answers some specific questions in
the FAQ, but I've not been able to locate any document that tells me
exactly what it will *do*.

I have to confess that I'm not entirely confident that the rollout of Flow
will be any smoother than the rollout of Visual Editor or MediaViewer,
largely because I'm not entirely confident of what it is that I'm supposed
to be getting. I'd be delighted to be corrected on this point if there is
something out there that I've missed.

Cheers,
Craig

On 6 September 2014 14:49, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hi all,

I'm breaking out this discussion about Flow/talk pages (apologies for
repeatedly breaking the megathread, but this is a well-scoped subject
which deserves its own thread).

Fundamentally, there's one key question to answer for talk pages in
Wikimedia projects: Do we want discussions to occur in document mode,
or in a structured comment mode? All else flows from there (pun
intended).

== Document mode ==

There are not many examples of document mode discussion systems beyond
wikis. You sometimes see people use collaborative realtime editors as
such, because people want to talk in the same space where they work,
but Google Docs provided alternatives (a pretty powerful
comments/margin system and built-in chat) early on, for example.

The current talk page system is a document mode system. Individual
comments have unclear boundaries (a single transaction can result in
multiple comments, signed or unsigned; indentation levels are
unpredictable and often inconsistent). All the joys and pain points of
working on the same document are present (a

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

2014-09-07 Thread Wil Sinclair

I don't know what you mean by entering an email, but when you add
something to a workflow like a bug system, it's pretty common that it
expects to be able to send you notifications about status changes,
etc.

I didn't experience any of the issues you mentioned on my Nexus 5
phone and Nexus 7 tablet. No crashes, no overwritten files, and
categories worked quite well with a string match list on search. I'm
new to selfies, so I took a few. On the off chance that anyone cares
what I look like :) here's one of them:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wil_Sinclair_Selfie.jpg

On the whole, I thought it was a great app, and I plan on using it for
more than uploading selfies soon. ;)

I did notice that audio files weren't handled correctly in the app
with the waiting wheel spinning endlessly, so I filed this bug:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70546

While I was playing around with it, I thought it would be cool if I
could record audio for immediate upload like the functionality for
taking and uploading a picture, so I added this bug:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70547

If you want to add your own issues, here's the place:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Commons%20App

If it's not obvious enough already, I'm going through my experience
because I believe it's not just the WMF that needs to make an effort
if we expect our software to shine. If you just want to complain in to
the wind, I suppose posting to this list is one way to do it (tho I
think there are better, more specific lists to post to). If you are
serious about getting it fixed, you might have to do a bit more
footwork, but you're much more likely to make a difference and help
the developers help us.

Whenever someone complains about software on this list, I plan to go
to bugzilla and check whether a bug has been filed. If it hasn't, I
won't hesitate to call the complainer on it. Let's do our part, so the
developers can do theirs.

,Wil

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,

The first thing to fix is the reporting: if the user accepts
reporting, you should really report the issue without asking to enter
a mail or some information the user does not know. I am fine playing a
guinea pig if it is useful, but here I can't even report anything.

Regards,

Yann

2014-09-07 11:15 GMT+05:30 Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com:
Hi Yann, most of the issues you're describing sound like straight-up bugs.

When it comes to Android, it helps to know about issues that affect
some models but may not come up on the model/version that the
developer is using for testing. I think it's safe to say that the S4
is a '''must work''' Android platform. Some of the open bugs already
filed might apply; if there are closed bugs that aren't fixed on S4,
they may need to be reopened with a comment. And some of the issues
you've mentioned don't seem to be captured at all:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=Androidlist_id=342313product=Commons%20App

IMO, we should be as diligent as possible when it comes to filing bugs
in the bug tracker. There are lots of concerns about the quality of
software that have been expressed here. Whether you happen to be
technical or not, this is one of the best ways each and every one of
us can do our part to build better software for our community.

Now that I've preached it, it's off to practice for me. I'm
downloading the commons app on both of my Nexus devices now and will
file any bugs I see. If anyone would like to join me and Yann, you can
install the app on your Android device here:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikimedia.commonshl=en

,Wil

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,

I am not a mobile user. So for the first time, I used the Mobile App
on a Samsung S4 to upload a few pictures. I am quite disappointed, to
say the least. I stopped counting how many times the application
crashed while uploading just a few pictures. Then in reviewing my
uploads, I can't see the description or the license, the field is
blank. Then I discovered that the Application does not check if the
name already exists, and uploads over the old file without warning.
Luckily I didn't upload over someone else files. Then the categories I
choose were not included, and also no warning there. It is a bit less
bad on a tablet, where I can read the description and the license, but
I can't add any category. I wonder how a software in such a bad
condition gets deployed... Now it is much easier than on the desktop,
and I understand why we get so many useless pictures from mobile
uploads.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Mobile_app#Feedback_on_Android

Regards,

Yann

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

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

2014-09-06 Thread Wil Sinclair

Hi Yann, most of the issues you're describing sound like straight-up bugs.

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=Androidlist_id=342313product=Commons%20App

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikimedia.commonshl=en

,Wil

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Mobile_app#Feedback_on_Android

Regards,

Yann

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

2014-09-05 Thread Wil Sinclair

This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a
chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that
come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a
bigger debacle:

1) Is the WMF working with the community as closely and substantially
as possible to make sure Flow is ready for primetime?

2) Is the community preparing itself for a major change, not only in
interface, but to some degree in wiki-philosophy about how discussions
are conducted- not to mention the notion that, while wiki software can
do almost anything involving asynchronous online communication, it
can't do everything as well as other interfaces?

I think Flow will be particularly challenging. I deployed Liquid
Threads on another site. I liked the threaded interface, as did
others. But overall it was roundly rejected because it was harder to
search (I only found out you have to add the namespace to the
searchable namespace in LocalSettings.php later), and it invasively
took over all discussion pages, among other headache. Problems like
these could easily be addressed before a rollout, but they should be
addressed as early as possible. It is notable, however, that the more
our users used it, the more they seemed to like it.

What can we do to make the Flow rollout as smooth as starting '''now'''?

,Wil

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
 On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
 On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
 FLOW?

 Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful
 of places, and is still in active deployment.

 But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than
 a new method alongside the old.  A long, long overdue and desperately
 needed replacement -- but a replacement nonetheless.

 That also explains the very deliberate development and feedback loop.

 -- Marc



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 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] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-05 Thread Wil Sinclair

Andreas, what would you do process-wise from the perspective of the
WMF and/or the broader community to improve communication and its
impact on development of Flow?

,Wil

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm not sure the term loop is appropriate. So far, I see little evidence
 that feedback provided [1] is making any appreciable difference.

 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flow


 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
  On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
  FLOW?

 Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful
 of places, and is still in active deployment.

 But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than
 a new method alongside the old.  A long, long overdue and desperately
 needed replacement -- but a replacement nonetheless.

 That also explains the very deliberate development and feedback loop.

 -- Marc



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 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] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-05 Thread Wil Sinclair

Interesting. What I'm noticing in both this discussion and the
discussions around MV is that a lot of us think that the solution has
value, but the features are not prioritized well. I don't have much
experience with Trello, but I know of lots of other tools (Bugzilla is
one, I believe) that can support discussions from the community per
feature/bug and have a voting feature.

I don't support RfC's on full systems. If we get to this point we've
all been doing it wrong for far too long to have an easy fix. But I
think that RfC-like discussions on every individual feature make a lot
of sense. And I think that one of the biggest steps the WMF can take
is to base prioritization of features on such RfC's in a
well-defined and well-understood way. IMO, user studies are important,
but they'd be better used to '''convince''' the community that
something is useful from a perspective that may be very different from
a very experienced user's, rather than force features down our
throats.

I know that this is already happening to some degree. But is the WMF
'''obligated''' to prioritize features based on community feedback?

As a separate question, would we find it easier to do this onwiki, and
are there extensions that we can build with the WMF to facilitate such
discussions and feature management? Or we cool with the tools we
already have?

,Wil

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think there have been some pretty strong indications over the years that
 the current talk page system needs to be improved.  However, there's been
 little discussion at all about whether Flow is that improvement.  I have
 been following the development for quite a while, and it really looks like
 the system was developed backwards: essential functions for effective
 discussion that already exist and are used on a daily basis were not
 included in the initial designs, while the design incorporated plenty of
 bells and whistles that were considered desirable (although the reasons for
 desirability weren't necessarily universally held or particularly clear).
 This has resulted in a huge amount of re-engineering to incorporate (some
 of the) needed functions , and a lot of downplaying of the feedback given
 because the feedback has conflicted with the bells and whistles of the
 original design.  There is also the fact that it would add another
 completely different user interface to the editing process, which increases
 barriers for existing users but even more so for new users.

 In other words, the issues with Flow are so deeply rooted in its core
 design and philosophy that it may not be possible to come up with a product
 that is actually useful on the projects we have to replace the discussion
 system we have.  It seems that the Flow team has assembled the ingredients
 to make a chocolate cake with the hope that it will be a suitable
 replacement for vegetable stew.

 Risker/Anne

___
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

2014-09-05 Thread Wil Sinclair

Actually, Tim, you're not giving me credit for all the other mistakes I made. :D

FWIW, lessons have been learned, and there is a new version in the
works. But many people on this list have specifically said that they
don't want to talk about Offwiki, and we should respect their wishes.

I did make a big mistake that's relevant to this thread when I
deployed Liquid Threads on a project that shall remain nameless ;): I
didn't look in to it enough to know that it would essentially take
over all talk pages. I thought I had sandboxed it on a single page. I
accidentally surprised my users with it, and they did not like it.

I think there is a lot of value and promise in Flow. But it is a huge
paradigm shift for onwiki communication, and it must not surprise
users under any circumstances. Maybe someone has the right figure
handy, but I wouldn't be surprised if, after archives are added up,
there is more discussion across all wikis than content. If so, one
might argue that this is a bigger change than VE and it certainly
dwarfs the impact that most editors experience from the MV rollout.
The WMF '''must''' get this one right. And that's not possible without
our help.

When I see that a problem I care about needs to be solved, my first
question is what can I do to help? Telling others what they can do
is just too easy; after all, it's not like I commit to making an
effort in doing so. So, starting with myself, I'd say the first step
is figuring out what the community's expectations are in building and
rolling out the release. How can I help prevent the WMF's simply
making a death march to a debacle by ignoring our expectations? Maybe
organizing our thoughts might help.

Here's a start to a list based on stuff I've read here so far:

1) The WMF should not only involve the community in setting feature
priority, but commit to honoring community sentiment when it is
expressed overwhelmingly on any given feature. A very rough example
would be something like if there are 250 more increase priority
votes than decrease priority votes, the feature would be bumped up.

2) Priorities should be fully transparent to the community, and they
should mean something. For example, all must-haves must be
implemented before any should-haves are worked on.

3) User studies should be invoked to convince the community that
something is of value to users who may not have as much experience,
and not offered as an excuse while shoving features down the
community's throat.

4) (My own addition, here) A mechanism to make it easy to gather
community feedback and quantify community sentiment '''in one place
per feature''' should be set up. No hopping from onwiki to bugzilla to
trello to whatever the WMF engineering team decides they want to use
next. If the WMF wants to use a new tool, it should integrate with the
toolset we're already used to IMO so that information doesn't get lost
behind links.

,Wil

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote:
 I really don't like the way that people are referring to Flow as a done
 deal with an inevitable roll out. Nothing remotely close to workable
 software has been produced, no case has been made that the purported
 problems being addressed by this top-down software project are valid issues
 in the community, the range of unintended effects that will be cause by the
 mass archiving of talk pages and move to a new flashy system hasn't been
 properly assessed.

 With Visual Editor, there was a clear need for WYSIWYG capabilities —
 although the software rolled out was grossly inadequate and the roll out
 process hamhanded (not to say incompetent). With Media Viewer, at least
 there is a clear benefit to a certain percentage of WP readers to offset
 the inconveniences resulting from mildly inadequate software. With Flow we
 are looking at the potential of grossly inadequate software with no
 apparent saving graces other than the fact that the old software is old
 and the new software will be new and that things will look nice.

 If this is done wrong, it will be a catastrophe for WMF far bigger than
 what happened with VE.

 Wil Sinclair, an enthusiast for the LiquidThreads/Flow mechanism for talk
 pages, is in an excellent position to give us some A/B numbers for
 participation at his site, with in without LiquidThreads being imposed from
 above.

 How did that work out with participation levels at the OffWiki site, Mr.
 Sinclair?

 How many very active editors has the convenient LiquidThreads mechanism
 generated for your site?

 How many edits have taken place in the month after LiquidThreads was
 installed over community objections versus the month before it was
 installed?

 Has the clean up process been easy reconverting to MediaWiki without the
 LiquidThreads extension?

 Bottom line: OffWiki site participation was blown up by a unilateral move
 to LiquidThreads by the tech department.

 Observe and learn.

 Tim Davenport
 Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO

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

2014-09-05 Thread Wil Sinclair

Risker, what do you think might get us all back on track for Flow?
Should the WMF consider a reset of the project and proceed only after
making specific and enforceable commitments to work with the
community? Is a total rewrite in order? Should we go completely tabla
rasa on it and revisit whether we need something like this at all?

,Wil

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think there have been some pretty strong indications over the years that
 the current talk page system needs to be improved.  However, there's been
 little discussion at all about whether Flow is that improvement.  I have
 been following the development for quite a while, and it really looks like
 the system was developed backwards: essential functions for effective
 discussion that already exist and are used on a daily basis were not
 included in the initial designs, while the design incorporated plenty of
 bells and whistles that were considered desirable (although the reasons for
 desirability weren't necessarily universally held or particularly clear).
 This has resulted in a huge amount of re-engineering to incorporate (some
 of the) needed functions , and a lot of downplaying of the feedback given
 because the feedback has conflicted with the bells and whistles of the
 original design.  There is also the fact that it would add another
 completely different user interface to the editing process, which increases
 barriers for existing users but even more so for new users.

 In other words, the issues with Flow are so deeply rooted in its core
 design and philosophy that it may not be possible to come up with a product
 that is actually useful on the projects we have to replace the discussion
 system we have.  It seems that the Flow team has assembled the ingredients
 to make a chocolate cake with the hope that it will be a suitable
 replacement for vegetable stew.

 Risker/Anne




 On 5 September 2014 13:29, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a
 chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that
 come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a
 bigger debacle:

 1) Is the WMF working with the community as closely and substantially
 as possible to make sure Flow is ready for primetime?

 2) Is the community preparing itself for a major change, not only in
 interface, but to some degree in wiki-philosophy about how discussions
 are conducted- not to mention the notion that, while wiki software can
 do almost anything involving asynchronous online communication, it
 can't do everything as well as other interfaces?

 I think Flow will be particularly challenging. I deployed Liquid
 Threads on another site. I liked the threaded interface, as did
 others. But overall it was roundly rejected because it was harder to
 search (I only found out you have to add the namespace to the
 searchable namespace in LocalSettings.php later), and it invasively
 took over all discussion pages, among other headache. Problems like
 these could easily be addressed before a rollout, but they should be
 addressed as early as possible. It is notable, however, that the more
 our users used it, the more they seemed to like it.

 What can we do to make the Flow rollout as smooth as starting '''now'''?

 ,Wil

 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
 wrote:
  On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
  On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
  FLOW?
 
  Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful
  of places, and is still in active deployment.
 
  But you're correct that this would constitute a replacement rather than
  a new method alongside the old.  A long, long overdue and desperately
  needed replacement -- but a replacement nonetheless.
 
  That also explains the very deliberate development and feedback loop.
 
  -- Marc
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 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
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

2014-09-03 Thread Wil Sinclair

 tl;dr: We've been collectively whining about templates for long enough. Who
 wants to help with fixing them?

I want to help fix them.

 I hope we can, for the coming period, accomplish the following:

 * Catalog the problems with templates. Make a comprehensive list that
 enumerates the problems with templates we have now, categories the problems
 (right now I'm roughly thinking in style, wikitext parsing rules and
 generated HTML, creation and writing issues (let's hope there is little of
 this one left after Scribunto), and usability by editors).
 * Note which quirks that lead to technical difficulties are used in the
 wild as features rather than bugs.
 * Brain storm possible (partial) solutions.
 * Find candidates that have high bang-for-buck possible solutions without
 impeding future improvements much.
 * Refine those solutions so we know quite exactly what it will fix, what it
 won't fix, and what it would possibly break.
 * Define sane fallback procedures for when things break; this should mainly
 come from the editing communities, but could probably use some guidance of
 what is possible/easy/logical/feasible from a technical POV from the
 development community.
 * Fix templates.

I'd like to add distribution as one of the pain points. I wanted to
have the templates that are available on enwiki for another Mediawiki
installation, but I couldn't get them to work. It seems like every
template has a maze of dependencies, and when I resorted to exporting
all of the templates from the Mediawiki site, the software
consistently crashed before all templates were exported. I might have
been doing it wrong, but I couldn't find any other options. Ideally,
something like a package management system for templates, extensions,
and skins would be a godsend.

 What do you all think? Should we make this happen?

I'm no template expert, but I agree with a lot of what you've said
based on the experiences I've had. I think we should discuss this
somewhere that is less transient than this list. ln short, I'm down.

,Wil

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

2014-09-03 Thread Wil Sinclair

Exsqueeze the ignorance. I'm still a n00b. Martijn, where should we
set this discussion up?

It's clear that there are several people who are interested in talking
templates. I'm getting my hands dirty with them on another project I'm
working on. I don't mean to rush you; just tell me what to set up for
this discussion and where, and I'll make sure it gets done.

,Wil

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

  tl;dr: We've been collectively whining about templates for long enough.
 Who
  wants to help with fixing them?

 I want to help fix them.


 Great to hear. Getting my ass in to gear is one of my greatest weaknesses,
 and from what I know from you you're really good at that. :)


  I hope we can, for the coming period, accomplish the following:
 
  * Catalog the problems with templates. Make a comprehensive list that
  enumerates the problems with templates we have now, categories the
 problems
  (right now I'm roughly thinking in style, wikitext parsing rules and
  generated HTML, creation and writing issues (let's hope there is little
 of
  this one left after Scribunto), and usability by editors).
  * Note which quirks that lead to technical difficulties are used in the
  wild as features rather than bugs.
  * Brain storm possible (partial) solutions.
  * Find candidates that have high bang-for-buck possible solutions without
  impeding future improvements much.
  * Refine those solutions so we know quite exactly what it will fix, what
 it
  won't fix, and what it would possibly break.
  * Define sane fallback procedures for when things break; this should
 mainly
  come from the editing communities, but could probably use some guidance
 of
  what is possible/easy/logical/feasible from a technical POV from the
  development community.
  * Fix templates.

 I'd like to add distribution as one of the pain points. I wanted to
 have the templates that are available on enwiki for another Mediawiki
 installation, but I couldn't get them to work. It seems like every
 template has a maze of dependencies, and when I resorted to exporting
 all of the templates from the Mediawiki site, the software
 consistently crashed before all templates were exported. I might have
 been doing it wrong, but I couldn't find any other options. Ideally,
 something like a package management system for templates, extensions,
 and skins would be a godsend.


 A Mediawiki core templates pack sounds like a good idea - as would making
 template and module interdependencies explicit to somewhat avoid the Great
 Tangle.

 aside - wikitech-l as well as #mediawiki freenode are in my experience
 happy to help with individual setup woes, which could help you with the
 acute import issues /aside


  What do you all think? Should we make this happen?

 I'm no template expert, but I agree with a lot of what you've said
 based on the experiences I've had. I think we should discuss this
 somewhere that is less transient than this list.


 Stop rushing me all y'all! ;)


 ln short, I'm down.

 ,Wil

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

 ___
 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] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-03 Thread Wil Sinclair

 Hoi,
 Maybe... but it assumes that we have plenty of time and work sequently.
 Both are not the case and as it is, the framework is broken.to the extend
 that people refuse to use it. So yes, ideally you want to fix many issues
 nicely and in a collaborative manner. At the same time our readers are
 disappearing from our old platform and new editors are not happening on the
 old platform.

Open source has a lot of benefits. Delivering quality software '''on a
schedule''' is not one of them. But it can be done. We did it with
Zend Framework with quarterly major releases. We also turned community
sentiment around after the negative reaction to 1.0, which was
released right before I joined Zend.

I'd say that the most impactful thing we did to right the ship was
hearing people out wherever they chose to discuss ZF. We monitored all
channels of communication and responded to frustrations as quickly as
possible. Most of our comments boiled down to:

You're right. We have a problem here. Will you help us fix it?

In other words, we made sure we walked the walk so that we could
invite others to walk with us. And the constructive critics figured
out that walking is more fun/satisfying than all the talking. Of
course, that meant we walked away from some critics who weren't
interested in being constructive. We never looked back.

I believe this community can also turn all this dysfunction and stress
in to something positive. So, let's start walking; here's a
proposal/challenge for those who think Media Viewer isn't worthy:

Take all that time you're investing in petitioning the community and
use it to build something better than Media Viewer. A lot of you have
already identified pain points in MV and some solutions have also been
put forward; so, if you are not planning to get involved in the
project that the WMF has set up for whatever reasons, join us in
building what Media Viewer should be without the complications of
dealing with the WMF. If it turns out to be a better solution than
Media Viewer, then I suggest we create a petition to replace MV with
the community's solution. That's the kind of positive, action-oriented
petition I can sign.

I'll even kick it off. We can start listing the requirements for the
Worthy Media Viewer on this page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WorthyMV.

So, who's ready to walk?

,Wil

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recruiting for Wikimedia security newsletter

2014-08-19 Thread Wil Sinclair

Hi Pine, I'd love to contribute. I'll mail you offlist about that, but
I have a few general questions that others may be wondering about.

Would this be similar to one of these newsletters?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Newsletters#List_of_newsletters

If so, from your list of topics it sounds like this one might be a bit
different than the other newsletters in that material relatively
unrelated to WM/WP is fair game. Maybe I'm just a small-minded techie,
but you lost me at check fraud.

I'm assuming a how-to on how to set up a MediaWiki installation
without getting completely pwned by spammers and mals. Hint: don't let
untrusted users move and delete pages. :) Also, I'm working on
security integrations between MW and some other popular open source
projects. If anyone has anything to say about this stuff, please mail
me offlist or maybe we can take it to a more specific list.

Anyways, best of luck with wherever you guys/gals take this.

,Wil

 In collaboration with Chris Steipp, I am considering starting a monthly
 security newsletter for Wikimedia, focused on common risks and mitigation
 techniques. The target audience is the broad Wikimedia community including
 developers, WMF and chapter employees, and volunteers with high risk
 accounts.

 Example topics:
 Phishing
 Coding best practices
 Wifi security
 Securing data stored on cell phones
 Check fraud
 Preventing insider theft of funds in Wikimedia organizations

 If you are interested in contributing to the newsletter please email me off
 list.

 Thanks,

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

2014-07-13 Thread Wil Sinclair

 We have had a number (not enough!) of Wikimedia (usually Wikipedia,
 and typically English Wikipedia) discussion sites, but has there been
 any previous ones that have used mediawiki?  That is, other than
 Meta.. ?

I can't answer your question about previous sites, but I can tell you
that the reasoning behind using MediaWiki was to test ideas in both
governance and technology.

 IMO it is unfortunate that Wil didnt hasnt made more use of Meta, and
 I am curious what the reasoning behind that decision was.  There are
 very few people banned from Meta, thought it does happen occasionally
 and is usually reversed if they can behave.

Maybe my answer above addresses this. Part of the reasoning is to
create an environment where everyone can contribute. But we're also
experiment with different forms of governance and testing the impact
of technology changes on the site. This isn't something we can do on
Meta.

 I am also very curious about who came up with the Offwiki term 'Flounder'.
 http://offwiki.org/wiki/Meta:Proposals#Flounders
 To me it feels like a very nasty slur against Jimmy Wales.

Actually, I did. And I didn't mean to slight Jimmy. I respect Jimmy
greatly. The idea behind flounder is that founder is a loaded word
in some circles of Wikipedia critics. Also, it's self-deprecation; I
figured we'd have issues in the beginning- after all, I'd never run a
Mediwiki installation before- and we've greatly exceeded my
expectations on this front. ;) In general, I'd like the site to take a
more light-hearted direction than it has so far, but it's up to the
community.

 Also, will Offwiki be multilingual?  Does it intend to cover projects
 other than English Wikipedia?  If not, it isnt very relevant to the
 wikimedia-l list, but is of course relevant to wikien-l which I have
 cc:d which appears to be its primary focus.

Sure, it can be fully multilingual. I believe one person already
suggested articles in Russian.

In any case, we should probably discuss this on Offwiki itself. I'm
happy to see some interest, but it is off topic for this forum.

,Wil

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

[Wikimedia-l] Do Over

2014-07-12 Thread Wil Sinclair

Hi all, I'd like to try participating on this list again. Now that
there's much more context about me with respect to Wikimedia projects,
I'd appreciate a chance to re-introduce myself:

Hi, I'm Wil Sinclair. Strictly speaking, I've been a Wikipedian for 7
years, but I've been an active Wikipedian for less than 3 months. In
that time I believe I've seen a lot, but I still have a lot to learn.

I like to contribute to diverse articles in an effort to learn more
about things that I'm unfamiliar with. My interests include electronic
music production, home automation, web technologies, somewhat warped
cinema, and ADHD, which is a disorder that affects me and my family
profoundly. Currently I'm doing research on wild west figures such
as Jesse James with the goal of contributing to relevant articles.
It's a topic I didn't know much about beforehand, and I see it as an
opportunity to learn.

I'm also working on adding more sound samples to Commons in an effort
to make share-alike music production easier.

A lot of you may know me from my participation on Wikipediocracy. I'd
like to clarify my position on this community. I believe that there
are a lot of constructive things that are discussed there. On the
other hand, some members engage in extreme snark and doxxing, which I
have very vocally disapproved of from day one. I believe that the
discussions there occasionally devolve to hate speech, which I find
intolerable. There is a current discussion about these issues on my
blog: http://wllm.com/2014/07/11/greg-kohs-and-bigotry/.

I'm concerned that some members of the Wikipedia community can't
discuss issues on-wiki- whether they are currently blocked or simply
don't feel comfortable doing so. To address this problem, I created a
site called Offwiki. We're currently talking about issues such as
child protection, which is an issue that I brought up here, as well.
Some Wikipedians are concerned that their on-wiki usernames may be
used on offwiki.org; I am happy to create and block (if desired) such
usernames on request. My personal email is w...@wllm.com.

You can always rely on me to stick to my values, be outspoken, and act
in good faith, although not always obviously so as my MO seems to be
uncommon in this very vocal part of the Wikipedia community. I'll also
be mindful of the number of posts I send to this list; many complained
that I sent too many mails in a short period in the past. My
apologies.

I hope to get to know all of you better, and vice versa.

Best.
,Wil

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

[Wikimedia-l] Offwiki

2014-07-09 Thread Wil Sinclair

Hi all, I've started a new wiki called Offwiki: http://offwiki.org.
Our community discusses potential changes to Wikipedia and its
Wikimedia sister projects that aren't easily discussed in forums like
this mailing list. We also try new ideas that we hope will be adopted
on-wiki- both social and technical in nature.

But that's not the primary reason I'm writing all of you. I've noticed
that many prominent Wikipedians have created accounts to avoid
impostors claiming their very public usernames for themselves. My
apologies, but Wikimedia doesn't run an OpenID server, and there's
really no other way for me to confirm identities before a user has
created a username. The problem is technical, and AFAIK there is
nothing I can do about it.

So, if you're concerned about your username being phished out, then
consider creating an account at http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page.
Maybe you'll even stick around for a few minutes to see what we've
been up to. :)

Thanks.
,Wil

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

2014-05-29 Thread Wil Sinclair

With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.

I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel unsafe and
leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
library on Commons.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
 Hi Wil,

 I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
 well worth taking on board.

 Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
  But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
 that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
 child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
 they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
 in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.

 I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
 spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
 recrimination.

 Cheers,
 Craig


 On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:

 hi Wil,

 reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
 I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
 you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.

 As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
 slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
 about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
 Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
 Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
 AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
 skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
 critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
 opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.

 I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
 in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
 breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
 participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
 able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
 for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).

 If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
 frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.

 best,

 dariusz pundit



 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

  As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
  let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
 
  I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
  don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
  the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
  ostracized.
 
  That's right: *afraid*
 
  I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
 
 
 
  . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
  I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
  that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
  lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
  by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
  are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
  many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
 
  ,Wil
 
 
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
   Hello all,
  
   Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
   hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
  
   Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
   that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
  
  
   Pete Forsyth writes:
   I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
 at
   least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
   active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
  
   Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
   would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
   there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
  
  
   Erik Moeller writes:
   As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
  [month]
  
   Wil Sinclair writes:
   just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
   who have

92 matches

Mail list logo