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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
On 7 September 2014 13:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
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.
...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
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,
Gerald, are you saying that you personally find the effort involved in
editing wikitext or adding media disproportionate , or that there are
people who would like to contribute content who find it excessive, but
would find it effective with a more intuitive interface? The first I
doubt; the
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 1:54 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
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 support
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
On 7 September 2014 23:54, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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
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
Hoi,
I hardly ever write a Wikipedia article because there are too many
showstoppers as far as I am concerned. The reasons for me are that the
policies involved are so overly complicated that I first consult a friend
about my plan for an article and its feasibility. The second reason is the
large
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org 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
On 8 September 2014 00:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
. 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. :-)
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
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
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 w...@wllm.com wrote:
I composed the following as part of a
26 matches
Mail list logo