On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker wrote:
> I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor
> grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully
> embraced by the community. It's not entirely perfect for all use cases,
> but it is so much better than anyth
Anthony,
I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are
entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made
this distinction clearer from the outset:
1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is
what I think you are dis
Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it.
Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
wouldn't bother reading their reports.
If you and Andreas were to sign on, th
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And
some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts
dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read
Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole wrote:
> This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy
> that see
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that
seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Brandon and Sarah:
>
> I'm going to resist the urge to
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Molly White <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that
> was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at
> last glance) members that their comments and the name
Yes!!! This is why I haven't spent much time contributing on Meta at all
since then:
" We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
On 2016-02-22 10:31, Erik Moeller wrote:
2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to
state
that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk
pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choi
2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
> Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state
> that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk
> pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.
Our early communications approach
On 2016-02-22 04:42, SarahSV wrote:
So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People
who
had been doing something for years were not
On 2016-02-22 04:01, Gergő Tisza wrote:
One example of the shortcomings of emails as a medium for complex
discussions is how this thread about postmortems continues to be
diverted
into discussions about Facebook, despite Pete's best efforts.
At the end of the day, people will prefer tools that
On 22 February 2016 at 01:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result
> of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan
> Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov,
> Jon Beasley-Murray,
I hope to see some rigorous, independent analysis of the current crisis,
once the dust has settled. It'd be nice for that to be initiated and funded
outside the WMF but with their full cooperation. Is there a charitable
foundation whose mission would cover this?
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV wrote:
> Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be
> helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I
> talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
>
> But leaving that aside, for the Fou
It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that
was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at
last glance) members that their comments and the names they use on Facebook
be published, and I'm not sure that's feasible. Still, it's a thought.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:42 AM, SarahSV wrote:
> That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There
> was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> amounted to "if you agre
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic?
Not in the slightest.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> disagree? What ki
On 21 February 2016 at 22:42, SarahSV wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> > embraced?
> >
> > What would need to be different?
> >
> > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedi
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
hasn'
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> embraced?
>
> What would need to be different?
>
> These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get
> better at asking and exploring.
>
> Lila
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Here, Brandon, I think you're
> implying that there is fundamental resistance to change.
Let me disabuse you of a notion: I am not _implying_ this. I am
_directly stating it._
---
Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made o
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote:
>
> I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ...
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
> Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all
> attempts to fix this have been shot down with venom.
Meh, I'm fine with people talking in any venue they wish. Speaking only
for myself, I don't need to read everything everyone has written; if it's
something that needs to be brought to broader attention, chances are
someone will facilitate it. But I think even those who are entirely happy
to be on
One example of the shortcomings of emails as a medium for complex
discussions is how this thread about postmortems continues to be diverted
into discussions about Facebook, despite Pete's best efforts.
At the end of the day, people will prefer tools that work well over tools
that align philosophic
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Thyge wrote:
> I acknowledge that a group of wikipedians may discuss in any forum, they
> prefer. Doing
> it in a closed forum on FB does not, however, constitute a discussion by
> the community,
> because it excludes a lot of people who reject i.e. the FB licens
I acknowledge that a group of wikipedians may discuss in any forum, they
prefer. Doing
it in a closed forum on FB does not, however, constitute a discussion by
the community,
because it excludes a lot of people who reject i.e. the FB license, the FB
terms of use, and
last not least the FB privacy
Hi all, it’s probably useful to paste in the “What for?” message for the
Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. Hopefully it will help clear things up.
—-
From:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikipedia-weekly/introduction-to-the-ww-group/961015923946239
This is a quick note about what goes on here in t
The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result
of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan
Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov,
Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt,
and Ti
I can agree with what you're saying, Craig. I can also understand what
Brandon is saying - that some people prefer that interface.
Unlike many Facebook pages, though, this one is not public and cannot be
viewed by anyone who does not have a FB account. It's the one venue that
many interested par
People will have discussions at a location that is personally convenient
for them. Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't see that
there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the
discussion.
Cheers,
Craig
On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge wrote:
> I reall
Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all attempts
to fix this have been shot down with venom.
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote:
>
> I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we
> applying for a grant?
---
Brandon Harris :: bhar...
I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we
applying for a grant?
Thyge
2016-02-22 0:51 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad :
> I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I
> only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already
> have Wikipedia :
I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I
only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already
have Wikipedia :)
Newyorkbrad
On 2/21/16, Risker wrote:
> As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access
> to Facebook. If this is
As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access
to Facebook. If this is something germane and useful to a lot of people on
this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to post it here.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole wrote:
> For
For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response to Jonathan
Cardy's comment here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedi
37 matches
Mail list logo
