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

2015-04-29 Thread Pete Forsyth
James, Pine suggested you might be able to fill in some of the gaps here. I am not tied to any given format, but what I'm looking for is the connective tissue between things like ACTRIAL, AFC and its increased use, Page Curation, the Draft: namespace, etc. Reading through the associated pages on

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

2015-04-25 Thread Aleksey Bilogur
I put model writing a new article with visual editor on my to-do list. It may be a good idea to do a few test runs where we boot a hundred or so pages in each category in VisualEditor, and then see how many of each have errors. On Apr 25, 2015 1:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 25

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

2015-04-25 Thread David Gerard
On 25 April 2015 at 04:11, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see. When did you last

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

2015-04-24 Thread David Goodman
As I cannot use it consistently myself without making errors, I'm not going to teach people the visual editor. I've done quite nicely teaching beginners to use the wiki syntax, by imitating what they see. As I have spent most of my time for the last year and a half dealing with the gross

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

2015-04-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel. Thanks Pine. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is somebody (maybe Fabrice?) who can shed some light on the general thinking in the software development in this area.

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

2015-04-24 Thread Pine W
Hi Pete, James A. might be able to answer that, or know which project manager to ping. AFC and related processes are within my scope of concern regarding editor retention, but they're not my expertise. I wish I could help more. Currently, when I'm not dealing with Cascadia Wikimedians budgets

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

2015-04-24 Thread Pine W
I agree with the statement New tech can only do so much to fix the problem. Our retention rate for new editors was 1% the last time I checked. What we should do about that should probably be the subject of a different thread. We've had multiple discussions about vital statistics for the editor

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

2015-04-23 Thread Pine W
Hi Pete, Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel. Pine On Apr 22, 2015 11:59 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the

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

2015-04-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
Philippe, can you address what you were talking about here last fall -- was the draft feature, and the way it directed new contributors toward the Articles for Creation process, the thing you alluded to, that WMF did in response to ACTRIAL? If so -- has there been any study of whether its

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

2015-04-23 Thread James Alexander
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Pete, Philippe is on vacation, so I'm forwarding this to Rachel. Pine He pops in every once in a while during his break but while

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

2015-04-23 Thread Aleksey Bilogur
I don't know that there is a next step. The WMF has clearly indicated they will not budge on the solution that the high-level Wikipedia community says is needed. I have qualms myself about the way the community operates at times but covering ACTRAIL and New Page Patrol at the Signpost felt like an

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

2015-04-23 Thread Aleksey Bilogur
Sure, and from what I hear it helped, but it was no panacea, especially since it's a solution that still relies on a still-declining editor base. Not like turning the valves would be, and that's clearly not going to happen. Hence why I doubt there's much more room for improvement on this issue.

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

2014-09-09 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The team has pretty strong arguments why they don't want posts to be editable (the gist is, they fear that no other discussion system does this, and it will freak people out -- they see the introduction of a new system as

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

2014-09-07 Thread Pine W
I would suggest aiming for a series of base hits. (: An attempt was made to hit VE out of the park. We know how well that worked. I think a lot of the work of capturing suggestions is supposed to be done by the project manager and the engineering community liaisons. It would be interesting to

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

2014-09-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, I like your story and I understand the sentiment. For me the story is about the kind of functionality that we may or may not need in Flow. The story is not about retaining what went before.. Mark my words, I cannot wait for the old talk system to go. As I understand the current situation,

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

2014-09-07 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
2014-09-07 4:17 GMT+03:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: I think the design of Flow is much like the liqueur-filled chocolates. It's missed the point of a discussion space on Wikimedia projects. All the use cases in the world, no matter how carefully researched and accounted for, will help you

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

2014-09-07 Thread Diego Moya
On 09/06/2014 17:06 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote: if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs? You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,

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

2014-09-06 Thread Erik Moeller
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The major deficiencies that have long been identified in the current discussion system (and that can be addressed by technology) are all able to be addressed in MediaWiki software or by extensions. Automatic signatures have

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

2014-09-06 Thread Erik Moeller
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: That's a legitimate question, although it's not as radically divorced as you would think; ultimately it'll use the VisualEditor (probably with a simplified toolbar by default) just like Flow does. .. just like article

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

2014-09-06 Thread Pine W
Something that that would be useful is a video demonstration of Flow in action. I like the goal of VE in principle, and I hear lots of comments to the effect that it is improving over time. MediaViewer seems to be on the road to improvement. I understand where both of those are headed. But I am

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

2014-09-06 Thread Erik Moeller
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Something that that would be useful is a video demonstration of Flow in action. That could be handy, Pine. But sometimes you can't demonstrate all benefits yet, because they don't even exist in the implementation yet -- only in

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

2014-09-06 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, I have used LiquidThreads and the current talk pages for too long. I prefer LiquidThreads ANY day warts and all over the talk pages. Ok this discussion is about automated discussion environments and lets keep to that subject. As you may know, translatewiki.net uses LQT. It is therefore quite

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

2014-09-06 Thread Isarra Yos
On 06/09/14 06:13, Erik Moeller wrote: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The major deficiencies that have long been identified in the current discussion system (and that can be addressed by technology) are all able to be addressed in MediaWiki software or by

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

2014-09-06 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: Have the successes and failures of the existing approaches and tools been considered? Are things LQT got right present in Flow? Some, yes (remember Andrew and Brandon have worked on both LQT and Flow) -- in other cases the

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

2014-09-06 Thread
On 06/09/2014, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: Be like 4chan! Everyone loves 4chan. No. This is so wrong it hurts. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

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

2014-09-06 Thread David Gerard
Erik - how confident are you that you're coming up with something that the present users of talk pages - people actually trying to get work done on articles - will love? Not just barely tolerate - what are you bringing us? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing

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

2014-09-06 Thread Isarra Yos
On 06/09/14 07:41, Erik Moeller wrote: On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: Why in the world would posts not be editable? I've never used a platform where discussion was important in which users couldn't at least edit their own posts (along with mods) where

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

2014-09-06 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 06.09.2014 19:18, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The subject is discussion / talk space not article space editing.. Yaroslav please stay on topic..Surely Marc has more than 13 edits in all kinds of discussion on multiple wikis. Thanks, GerardM On 6 September 2014 19:14, Yaroslav M.

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

2014-09-06 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 09/06/2014 01:12 PM, Todd Allen wrote: But dismissing them by setting up a (rather ridiculous) straw man is not helpful. I *wish* it was a strawman. How else would you qualify: And sadly we have enough users around who try to contribute content without having time to go through the rite of

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

2014-09-06 Thread Risker
I'm not going to reply in-line here, because I think there's been an undoubtedly unintentional missing of the point here. Instead I will tell a story about a friend of mine. Some years ago, when her children were 3 and 4, their family had a lovely traditional Christmas Day, but something felt

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

2014-09-06 Thread Romaine Wiki
2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF staff in

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

2014-09-06 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target

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

2014-09-05 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote: I have heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think is an improvement. I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't accompanied with, at the very least, some

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

2014-09-05 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
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

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

2014-09-05 Thread Andreas Kolbe
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,

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

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

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

2014-09-05 Thread Risker
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

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

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

2014-09-05 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:29 AM, 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

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

2014-09-05 Thread Tim Davenport
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

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

2014-09-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF staff in general to be salesman for it - it is scaring the community that all WMF

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

2014-09-05 Thread Pine W
FWIW, ironically the tangled discussions about MediaViewer across multiple pages have made me think that having a more organized way to read discussions would be a good idea. My understanding is that this is one of Flow's objectives. If Flow can achieve this in a way that is helpful and

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

2014-09-05 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF

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

2014-09-05 Thread James Forrester
On 5 September 2014 17:25, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: One of the more recent WMF products: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageTriage An important note is that some of the configuration and code is specific to the English-language Wikipedia's workflows and as it's

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

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

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

2014-09-05 Thread Risker
Wil, the tl;dr here is Philosophical beliefs aren't an effective underpinning for good software design. Start over. It's taken me a while to piece together much from the early discussions about Flow and figure out how we got to where we are now. It's my opinion that the root of the problem is

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

2014-09-03 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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

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

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

2014-09-02 Thread Yann Forget
Hi, Thanks for your message. I think it is honest and useful. 2014-09-01 20:40 GMT+05:30 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org: ... MV is a perfect example. 99% of the problems it objectively has (we ignore here matters of taste) derive from the difficulty of parsing the multitude

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

2014-09-02 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 09/02/2014 02:52 AM, Yann Forget wrote: OK, I could buy that [fixing image pages]. But then why not fixing that *first*, so that any MV implementation coming afterwards would be smooth? In the best of worlds, that would have been ideal. Now, no doubt I'm going to be branded a cynic for

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

2014-09-02 Thread Jane Darnell
I don't think people yell MediaViewer is broken as much as they yell MediaViewer broke my workflow!. The problem is that no one cares about some editor's personal workflow, so maybe we should be documenting use cases that could be used for new old editors and developers alike On Tue, Sep 2,

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

2014-09-02 Thread Liam Wyatt
I generally agree with your analysis Marc, notwithstanding that there is blame to share on all sides - not just users who point to broken edge cases. The (quite predictable) behaviour you mention is why I was quite fond of the way the usability initiative from several years ago (the team that

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

2014-09-02 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: ... metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds. The *correct* solution is

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

2014-09-02 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 09/02/2014 10:35 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote: The key here in my opinion is: - clear communication about what state constitutes success (e.g. When 80% of people who have opted in have STAYED opted-in) - clear communication about the progress towards that state (e.g. Showing the success factor in

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

2014-09-01 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer, Superprotect and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the projects. Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves

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

2014-09-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on or off is not relevant really. When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you read about one of the major German players and it is found necessary to

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

2014-09-01 Thread Pine W
The difficulty of working with multiple configurations is one of WMF's main points, along with its opinion that readers prefer MV and that WMF should prioritize what WMF feels the readers want. WMF also is making a point of claiming soveriegnty over software configuration. Meanwhile, many

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

2014-09-01 Thread Craig Franklin
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's not about MediaViewer at all, it's about two things: #1: The frustration of some volunteers that they feel their views are not being adequately considered in major deployments of new software. #2: A lack of confidence and faith in the WMF

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

2014-09-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion. On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote: fter the catastrophic aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that should have been picked up in even a cursory unit testing scheme or regression testing scheme

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

2014-09-01 Thread
On 01/09/2014, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: ... metadata. It's not an argument against MV, it's an argument for getting rid of the horrid way we handle File: pages with ad-hoc workarounds. The *correct* solution is to fix the damn image pages, not to remove MV. ... So, can you

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

2014-09-01 Thread Todd Allen
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion. On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote: fter the catastrophic aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that should have

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

2014-09-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 09/01/2014 11:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: We've heard that before. Oh, I'm pretty damn sure that the stick to the timeline idea isn't going to get traction ever again. :-) But yeah in general recognizing an error is

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

2014-09-01 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Sep 1, 2014 5:10 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion. Thank you for that. A heartfelt rant feels a lot better than being told my call is important to you. (snip) The fundamental issue is that the WMF is attempting to

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

2014-09-01 Thread David Gerard
On 1 September 2014 17:57, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: The same, by the way, goes for VE, which should have had bail and give me what you have now as wikitext from the onset, and Flow which needs a bail and convert this thread to ye olde talkpage thread (which I fear will

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

2014-09-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 09/01/2014 12:57 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: The *correct* solution is to make MV bail completely on pages it fails to parse, falling back to the known bad-but-sufficient behaviour, and maybe adding a hidden category unparsable by MV to the image, so that it can be addressed. If 10% of the

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

2014-09-01 Thread Abd ulRahman Lomax
. From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments I think you've

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

2014-09-01 Thread Abd ulRahman Lomax
-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments Hoi, The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on or off is not relevant really. When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you

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

2014-09-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Dear Pine. I do not care a fig about what some users think. You either support their view or you do not. When they consider that the current number of readers is adequate, I want to appreciate what they think those numbers are, what the trends are and how it is possible that their opinion is

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

2014-09-01 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Thank you very much, Marc, for this clear and sound statement. It seems to me that there are many discussions that are far away from the real points, like the multitude of information on our pages. I once counted how many links there are on the German main page of Wikimedia Commons, I stopped when

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

2014-09-01 Thread Philippe Beaudette
On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF shrugged and said Nah, rather not. That's... Not exactly what I

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

2014-09-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sep 1, 2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the

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

2014-09-01 Thread Todd Allen
That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints, because the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort to produce. The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and spam from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully,

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

2014-09-01 Thread Risker
Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles showing up in mainspace? Risker/Anne On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker joedec...@gmail.com wrote: This, to the best of my knowledge,

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

2014-09-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved, since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC). Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?

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

2014-09-01 Thread Richard Farmbrough
What is irritating about the ACTRIAL scenario, was that it was a well defined (6 month) test. It might have worked, it might not have worked. But we would have known. We would have had solid comparators. Most of what we do (WMF and community) has no control to establish whether it works. To be

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

2014-08-31 Thread Yann Forget
Hi all, Thank you Erik for your mail. It shows that the WMF is willing to discuss rather than to impose its solution. I am really shocked that the dispute reaches that level of confrontation, and although some community members have a hard stance, this is largely due to WMF actions, specially

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

2014-08-31 Thread Richard Farmbrough
Legal position: I have seen it claimed by legal and repeated here by Erik that the reasonableness criteria means that we do not have to worry about the CCBYSA-3.0 clause that says all copyright holders need equal attribution. This is simply not so: The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be

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

2014-08-31 Thread Pine W
Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer, Superprotect and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the projects. Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is disheartening. Personally, I would like to see us building on

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

2014-08-30 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Once people decide to leave, the situation is quite stark. There are those that do and there are those that do not. In my previous mail it should have been clear that I described the situation after the departure of many malcontents. That IS a bi-polar state obviously. That is not to say

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

2014-08-29 Thread Mark
On 8/28/14, 2:55 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are married and though their

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

2014-08-29 Thread
On 30/08/2014, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 8/28/14, 2:55 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of

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

2014-08-28 Thread Pine W
WMF update: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)diff=9665238oldid=9664457 Gerard, I agree that a forked wiki could have collaborations with WMF. But having separate hosting and legal ownership would create new headaches and risks. I hope WMF takes a

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

2014-08-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Such separate hostings and ownership would not be that much of a risk to the WMF. The challenges will be first and foremost with the separatists; then again it is firmly their choice. There will be benefits on both sides as well. The community that remains with the WMF will lose all of the

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

2014-08-28 Thread Jane Darnell
I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new readers and missing female editors do not own or operate a desktop and are only available on mobile and tablet, so this is not only where the new readers are, but also where the first edit experience is for most women (and sadly,

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

2014-08-28 Thread
On 28 August 2014 12:56, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Gerard, and would add that a good portion of the new readers and missing female editors do not own or operate a desktop and are only available on mobile and tablet, so this is not only where the new readers are, but

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

2014-08-28 Thread ; )
Hey Jane, as the desktop is sometimes characterised only as a legacy input device for old power editors, while the reading is done from mobile devices, often in the form of mash-ups and geo-apps, why is a compromise so hard to achieve? One solution that pops up would

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

2014-08-28 Thread Jane Darnell
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are married and though their household contains a desktop, the desktop is

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

2014-08-28 Thread Jane Darnell
Hi g, Thanks for calling me an old power editor. I suggest you try to make an edit to a WIkimedia project of choice (e.g. add a photo to an existing article) on a desktop, then do the same on a mobile smartphone, and then report back here. Jane On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 8:50 AM, ; ) b...@gmx.at

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

2014-08-28 Thread Todd Allen
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are

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

2014-08-28 Thread Jane Darnell
I should explain that I am a resident of the Netherlands, where we have a central statistics bureau which includes census statistics that you can query for free and download your own datasets in xls format. As a data analyst I have spent lots of time gathering such data and reporting on it in

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

2014-08-27 Thread MF-Warburg
What the heck is a design community at all, and why does their opinion count, when WMF uses every opportunity to claim it is super-unfair to claim that the community wants anything? 2014-08-27 6:49 GMT+02:00 geni geni...@gmail.com: On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org

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

2014-08-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Actually the issue is no longer only that. It is also very much about how a subset of people high jack the conversation by their uncompromising stance. When they feel they might leave, I personally prefer it when they stop their posturing and decide either way. When they want to stay, they

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

2014-08-26 Thread Erik Moeller
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: If you take a look at the mobile experience in a desktop browser, you'll find it not so different from many redesigns - large, readable text, narrower measure, deliberately chosen typography, minimal clutter, easier

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

2014-08-26 Thread geni
On 27 August 2014 05:16, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: And the design community is taking notice: https://news.layervault.com/stories/31897-wikipedia-already-looks-great--just-add-m-on-desktop We already know the design community doesn't like the edit button. Was there any reason

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

2014-08-26 Thread geni
On 26 August 2014 09:39, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: First, I think it's worthwhile in these discussions - in a context of a project where consensus is important - to remember that there are actually many different perspectives on Media Viewer in the community. Even in German

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

2014-08-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Given that it is pathetically easy to opt out of the MultimediaViewer, the amount of vitriol spouted by some is way out of proportion to the problem. If you do not want it, opt out. But thermonuclear was was threatened, people were to lose their job over this. No the excuses are too little

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

2014-08-25 Thread Pine W
The issue is not just that individual users may want to opt out, it's whether it should be activated by default for readers. There is also the matter of licensing information. I'm not aware of where thermonuclear was was threatened. There were, and continues to be, discussion about forking. MV is

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

2014-08-25 Thread svetlana
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, at 13:19, Pine W wrote: I have heard very few people say don't ever change the interface. I have heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think is an improvement. VE was a good example. The sentiment of the community wasn't that VE''s concept

  1   2   >