-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Davenport
Sent: 10 September 2014 11:12 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
Having listened for the last week or two, here's
: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
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
On Thursday, September 11, 2014, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair > wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> 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 s
Hoi,
What should be known in advance are the features that are important and how
those features function in a workflow. During the development of software
we work towards implementing such features and corresponding functionality.
We may allow for partial implementation when it fulfills a need that
On 10 September 2014 19:54, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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.
That should be known in advance, before removing the old mechanisms,
not as a consequence of removing the
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
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
w
On 10 September 2014 22:49, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
>> That doesn't make any difference, Martijn. I ''want'' to be subscribed
>> to all the topics at my 3000 pages, I just don't want to get a
>> notification for all them; I want to actively seek most of those at
>> the watchlist in an opportunisti
Wil Sinclair wrote:
>
> 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.
Wouldn't it be easier to achieve such consensus i
In my case, improvements should come from the side of collaborative
editing, not conversation. The possibility that Tim introduced to have
long-term embedded comments and real-time collaboration at articles
and talk-page scratchboards would be - almost a killer app, as those
are clearly impossible
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 19:49, Martijn Hoekstra
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> >> The feature shouldn't be "notify on all posts on the subscribed
> >> thread" either. I don't want to be notified every time a n
On 10 September 2014 19:49, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
>> The feature shouldn't be "notify on all posts on the subscribed
>> thread" either. I don't want to be notified every time a new thread
>> appears at any one of my watched pages.
>
>
> Hence
David's really on to something here. What is the "killer app" of the
platform? If we think through requirements some, we might identify
just one or two features of Flow that almost all editors would find
compelling. This may be enough to shift lots of criticism from "I
don't want Flow because of th
On 10 September 2014 22:28, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
>
>> I have about 3000 pages in my
>> watchlist, and receive around 400 updates daily only from talk pages,
>> which 50 or so come from unique pages; getting all those as
>> notification
On 10 September 2014 19:52, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 18:48, Todd Allen wrote:
>
>> I think that would be very helpful indeed. "This part of the article was
>> most recently discussed under subject "Stop changing the genre". Click here
>> to review or participate in the discussio
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> The feature shouldn't be "notify on all posts on the subscribed
> thread" either. I don't want to be notified every time a new thread
> appears at any one of my watched pages. I have about 3000 pages in my
> watchlist, and receive around 400
Right, it's gone now. However that page survived the attempts of
removal from several administrators who positively wanted to get rid
of any trace of the "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Flow test" page, so
I don't know what it says about the discoverability of those features
:-/
It's disturbing to t
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> 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
On 8 Sep 2014, at 08:22, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> If it is good
>> software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
>> with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
>> even if the wider commun
On 10 September 2014 11:01, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 18:59, James Forrester
> wrote:
>
> > Eh. I'm not particularly interested in building features that only work
> in
> > VE and not wikitext, and particularly not in ones that would require
> > changing both the wikitext used t
On 10 September 2014 18:59, James Forrester wrote:
> Eh. I'm not particularly interested in building features that only work in
> VE and not wikitext, and particularly not in ones that would require
> changing both the wikitext used to write talk pages for the benefit of VE
> users and disrupting
On 10 September 2014 18:54, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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. "Lea
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen
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 page
On 10 September 2014 10:52, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 18:48, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> > I think that would be very helpful indeed. "This part of the article was
> > most recently discussed under subject "Stop changing the genre". Click
> here
> > to review or participate in the dis
On 09/10/2014 01:41 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> Take a look at this deleted topic at the test page that was deployed at
> en.wiki:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic:S214uoczkp47cfsx
As far as I can tell, you could see it because it never /was/ deleted.
I just deleted it, can you still see it?
I
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
On 10 September 2014 18:48, Todd Allen wrote:
> I think that would be very helpful indeed. "This part of the article was
> most recently discussed under subject "Stop changing the genre". Click here
> to review or participate in the discussion."
This being Wikipedia, we need to think about whe
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 17:47, Martijn Hoekstra
> > I think this is something of an oops, and not really something we should
> > judge the product on. Currently the broken mess is "notify on all posts
> on
> > all threads on the page", which shoul
I think that would be very helpful indeed. "This part of the article was
most recently discussed under subject "Stop changing the genre". Click here
to review or participate in the discussion."
On Sep 10, 2014 11:38 AM, "James Forrester"
wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 04:58, David Gerard wrote:
>
On 10 September 2014 18:37, James Forrester wrote:
> There have been proposals to use a right-hand bar to show information
> relevant to the content in view ("see related Wikidata item"; "articles on
> this subject in other languages use these images"; etc.); that could be a
> neat place to put r
On 10 September 2014 19:29, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 01:25 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
>> [...] that allow editors and admins to
>> detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
>> libel; features which are not available in Flow as of today.
>
> That is simply not true
On 10 September 2014 04:58, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 12:54, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> > * inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
> > rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
> > discussions (not a very frequent issue, but a messy one
On 10 September 2014 18:29, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Indeed, the Flow equivalent is even superior in at least one aspect:
> given that the actual comments are isolated and not differences between
> revision, supressing a comment containing libel that has gone unnoticed
> for a bit does *not* ca
On 09/10/2014 01:25 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> [...] that allow editors and admins to
> detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
> libel; features which are not available in Flow as of today.
That is simply not true, at last as of the master branch. Topics and
replies can be
Gerard, please think of the consequences of what you're proposing.
There are features at talk pages (detailed watchlists, incremental
diffs, true deletion of content) that allow editors and admins to
detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
libel; features which are not avai
On 10 September 2014 17:47, Martijn Hoekstra
> I think this is something of an oops, and not really something we should
> judge the product on. Currently the broken mess is "notify on all posts on
> all threads on the page", which should be "notify on all posts on the
> subscribed thread, and possi
Hoi,
Ditch talk pages asap. In my opinion tinkering is mostly a waste of effort.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 10 September 2014 17:45, MF-Warburg wrote:
> Am 10.09.2014 09:56 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" :
> >
> > Hoi,
> > I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
> > experien
On 10 September 2014 17:29, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Clearly, text discussion with people on phones is a known use case - and
> arguably the primary use of those things nowadays - so it's not like
> we're blazing new trails there. Editing /documents/ is a different
> beast altogether and waiti
On 09/10/2014 11:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Making entering text on a phone a process not made entirely of pain
> will be interesting.
I don't think it's the text proper that's the issue so much as the
navigation and (often) markup that uses a great deal of punctuation that
phone interfaces were
On 10 September 2014 16:48, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 11:45 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:
>> What do you propose to make talk pages easier to read and analyse?
> That's a hard question, and I expect one where a lot of UX
> experimentation will need to take place before we know.
> But one
On 09/10/2014 11:45 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:
> What do you propose to make talk pages easier to read and analyse?
That's a hard question, and I expect one where a lot of UX
experimentation will need to take place before we know.
But one thing /is/ known: it's going to be feasible iff the data is
act
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 07:54, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> > On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > * potential to work with Notifications ("tell me when anyone replies
> > to this discussion") without needing individual pings
Am 10.09.2014 09:56 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" :
>
> Hoi,
> I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
> experiences are futile because the desktop experience is the lesser of
two
> evils. The desktop experience is already bad, the experience on mobiles
and
> tablets is m
On 10 September 2014 07:54, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
> * potential to work with Notifications ("tell me when anyone replies
> to this discussion") without needing individual pings or relying on
> spotting one talkpage edit in a busy watchlist -
On 10 September 2014 12:54, Andrew Gray wrote:
> * inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
> rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
> discussions (not a very frequent issue, but a messy one when needed;
> Pine notes this below)
Yeah, that's gettin
On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> If it is good
>> software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
>> with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
>> even if the wider communi
I'd like to note that the following is my personal opinion, and any
resemblance to the opinions of the Wikipedia community or any parts therof,
Jimmy Wales, the NSA, the Dutch government, Y-combinator, the national
library of Australia, the British Housewives' League, and/or any other
opinion of an
In case it's not clear enough in my sig, this is my personal opinion:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2014 5:11 AM, "Keegan Peterzell" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW, I
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
> experiences are futile because the desktop experience is the lesser of two
> evils. The desktop experience is already bad, the experience on mobiles and
> tabl
Hoi,
I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
experiences are futile because the desktop experience is the lesser of two
evils. The desktop experience is already bad, the experience on mobiles and
tablets is much worse it is intolerably unusable,
Yes, you are overlook
On Sep 10, 2014 9:35 AM, "Gerard Meijssen"
wrote:
>
> Hoi.
> When you look at talk pages in isolation, you look at them on a computer
> screen. A mobile or tablet screen is increasingly not used in isolation.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
It
> is where we find our new users and editors. We
Hoi.
When you look at talk pages in isolation, you look at them on a computer
screen. A mobile or tablet screen is increasingly not used in isolation. It
is where we find our new users and editors. We cannot afford to ignore
them; they are our future. This is why tinkering with talk pages is not an
On Sep 10, 2014 5:11 AM, "Keegan Peterzell" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
>
> 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, a
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
< Flow is a long term bet that an architecture of structured comments
> will ultimately have fewer hard and fast limitations on how
> collaboration in wikis can work, and will accrue usability benefits
> very quickly (as it already has done, lik
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 wi
Thanks Erik for your mindful comment. Such high level technical,
social and strategic vision is rare to find. It deserves being placed
in a prominent position for increased visibility, and it helps in
building bridges with the community.
Inter-wiki conversation sounds indeed like a killer feature
On 9 September 2014 10:45, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
>> going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
>> have it for ourselves? What's Flow's killer
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
> going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
> have it for ourselves? What's Flow's ki
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> - Gabriel Wicke has done some experimentation with this as well, and
> is looking if he can dig up the old code for me.
Very old indeed, but if anyone wants to take a look:
https://github.com/gwicke/wikiforum
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineeri
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> As I wrote to Risker, I think it's worth considering spending some
> development time on turning something like the Teahouse gadget (which
> allows one click insertion of replies on the Teahouse Q/A page) into a
> Beta Feature after some furth
Responding to two comments. Firstly Risker " Newbies have an equally hard time
>
> editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
> very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
> to a good faith attempt. There is no evidentiary basis to de
Facebook?
So tell me, how do you explain to new Facebook users about the different
levels of "privacy"? Seems to me that I'm constantly hearing about people
having a lot of problems with that, especially since it's supposed to be a
key site feature.
I'm with you about indenting, it's always been
+1
On 8 September 2014 16:43, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
> Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
>
> b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
> system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorr
Hello,
a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorry to use this
word, *ridiculous* that you have to teach people how
Thank you for this overview and history, Erik!
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> And as above, I'm open to us putting some short term effort into talk
> page improvements that can be made without Flow -- knowing it's still
> some time out.
Is there a good wiki
Well, I think that the "article editing" project (i.e., VE) has a huge
potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues. I don't see
tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
such
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
That's not a reasonable task, Marc. Newbies have an equally hard time
editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
to a good faith attempt. There is no evidentiary basis to demonstrate that
ne
On 09/08/2014 12:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> While it may not be everybody's dream system, talk pages are quite
> usable, as demonstrated by a lot of people using them every single
> day.
That's... not a demonstration of usability. Like many people, I found
myself using some random blunt
Hoi,
Pine, I would like so many things.. I expect that SUL and more goodliness
from this will be a requirement. For me there is urgency in having a
discussion system that works for mobiles and templates...
Once we have that we either have other priorities or it is a really good
idea to be implemen
On 8 September 2014 11:44, Diego Moya wrote:
> Now if Erik vision for the deeper than I give him credit for,
... that would be: "Now if Erik vision for the Flow platform is deeper
than I give him credit for..."
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines
On 8 September 2014 05:54, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> And yet, after over a decade of open-ended design through social
> convention, the end result is... our current talk pages. Perhaps
> another decade or two will be needed before that document-centric
> architecture gives us a half-decent disc
A problem that I would like Flow to solve is the high amount of labor
needed to read over a dozen pages across four wikis in order for the reader
to access most of the MediaViewer discussions.
Pine
On Sep 8, 2014 12:22 AM, "David Gerard" wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> If it is good
> software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
> with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
> even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
This is the key point.
Tho
Hoi,
You missed the multiple discussion pages in all the "other" languages. They
are certainly as observant, as eloquent and they have different use cases
and issues as well.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 8 September 2014 06:26, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> I composed the following as part of a longer messa
Hoi,
There are two ways to look at the talk systems. It served us so far to some
extend. It has been considered in need of replacement for a long time and
consequently we have systems like Liquid Threads that are arguably at least
as good in many use cases and fail in others.
The other way to look
On 8 September 2014 00:46, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> . e.g. once it is
> beta quality, I am sure Jimmy Wales will want it enabled on his user
> talk page, which would increase exposure to, and acceptance of, Flow.
>
>
...or possibly far less complaining on his page. :-)
Risker/Anne
___
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
>> a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
>> structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
>> build new features and flows on top of it, with
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 informatio
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
> > a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
> > structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
> > build new features and flows on top of it,
On 7 September 2014 23:54, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
> > a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
> > structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
> > build new features and flows on top of it, witho
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
> a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
> structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
> build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request the
> platform developers to build supp
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 necessa
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 gen
...and having said and sent that previous post, I want to publicly
apologize for the third paragraph counting from the end. That was uncalled
for.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikim
On 7 September 2014 13:33, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Get real and look what Flow is and how it can be improved. Check out the
> use cases it works for and acknowledge the achievements. THEN and only THEN
> consider the features that are being tested and are still deficient. THEN
> and only THEN po
Hoi,
It is fine to disagree. What is lacking in your vision is a viable
alternative and, as you acknowledge the current system is no longer viable
we are in need of an alternative now. Your notions are yours and that is
fine. However, we are not a debating club really. My point is very much
that in
Gerard, with all due respect, your reply is all based on incorrect
assumptions. I recognize the severe problems that mediawiki conversations
currently have, and my points about Flow acknowledge that it's incomplete
software at its early stages and that it can grow into an acceptable tool
for having
Hoi,
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
> 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 dism
Hoi,
As it is the current talk pages are horrible. You gloss over this fact
because you are so fired up about the potential of "end users can
build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request
the platform
developers to build support for them". Then you attack flow because some
> These are just assertions, however. I liked your earlier comments
> because they are testable against the architecture (even if the
> current implementation, early as it is, will fail many of these
> tests). What real world needs cannot be met by a comment-centric
> architecture for .. commenting
Tim, I read that a bit differently.
"Flow is an *experimental* but already feature
rich alternative..."
"We will aim to cover one major set of new deployments per quarter,
*carefully picking use cases*."
This looks to me like the kind of incremental rollout that is appropriate.
The idea of users
Erik Möller wrote:
>> It's [Flow is] a system in early development, and has never been
advertised as anything else.
==
*This statement is simply not true.*
See the WMF's 2014-15 annual plan:
https://archive.org/details/WikimediaFoundation2014-15AnnualPlan
Page 20 (DIRECT QUOTE FOLLOWS):
*
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> ..last July...
>
July 2013, for clarity.
--
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mail
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pine W wrote:
> rik, I appreciate your engaging with this *early* enough for design
> decisions to be adjusted before Flow gets to major rollouts.
>
> Romaine, if the Dutch uses of features like templates are not being taken
> into account in how features are desi
rik, I appreciate your engaging with this *early* enough for design
decisions to be adjusted before Flow gets to major rollouts.
Romaine, if the Dutch uses of features like templates are not being taken
into account in how features are designed, I suggest contacting the
Engineering community liais
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Dan Garry wrote:
> There is one notable exception to the above, which is talk page header
> templates. One expects updates to a template used as a talk page header to
> update every page the template is currently transcluded on, which is not
> happening presently. {
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
