Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-14 Thread Andreas Kolbe 
Hi,

I'd just like to revive the point made by Pelagic in the post that started
this thread. I was just now once again presented with this banner wording,
"Show the editors who bring you neutral and verified information that their
work matters."

I find this wording very offensive, as it implies that the WMF is the one
doing that work of bringing the public "neutral and verified information" –
which it is not – and that the WMF should be given money to honour that
work.

I'd much rather the WMF were highlighting what *it* is doing in its
fundraising appeals. Surely this is not too hard to understand?

Andreas

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Pelagic via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> [ Cross-posted from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
> ]
>
> I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the other day, and
> was struck by the large size of the donation banner, and the odd wording of
> the appeal. (Something about awkward and humble.) Re-checking now, the
> "awkward" bit is gone, but the following sentences are still there:
>
> "If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge, take a minute to
> donate. Show the editors who bring you neutral and verified information
> that their work matters."
>
> As an occasional editor I want to know: how do the donations show me that
> the work matters? Is there some W?F "appreciation fund" that's going to
> start handing out disbursements to editors? Will the money hire more dev's
> to implement all the unfinished items from the Community Wishlists? Will
> funds be used to run better "community consultations" where the communities
> are actually listened to? Or is it just a big fat cynical marketing lie?
>
> [Add: okay, I get it that donation appeals have to phrased in a way that
> actually causes people to donate.  But this skates very close to implying
> that Wikipedia's editors are paid from donors' money.]
>
> Cheers,
> Pelagic
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-08 Thread Christophe Henner 
Hi,

I consider a bike to be an amazing transportation tool, yet I haven't biked
for months because it is not appropriate to how I commute. I am not sure
invalidating someone's opinion based on its edit count is a good way to
have that discussion .

All the statistics I have ever seen on Visual Editor for years are
supporting evidence it helps newcomers.

I haven't found very recent ones though, but I cannot see why it would have
changed. Perhaps one of you have a more recent study I couldn't find. If
someone has, please share it! I love numbers :D


As for the initial message, contributing financially to Wikimedia projects
is a way to contribute and show support. When a reader gives money, they
are showing that the work volunteers do matter to them.

It is on of the way to contribute and to show gratefulness.

If what we did stop being relevant to readers, they would stop donating. It
is not as much as the amount that matters but the act of giving. So this
sentence strikes me as a good way of saying it actually.

What do you think Pelagic?


Le mar. 8 déc. 2020 à 9:52 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  a écrit :

> But the statistics we are talking about are from 2016 not 2006... And I
> think this is good point as I rember similar discussion in Polish Wikipedia
> when strong supporterts of Visual were found actually not using it on
> regular basis. Answering the question why you are personally not using it
> althgough you claim it is so wonderful might help with future development
> of this tool...
>
> pon., 7 gru 2020, 23:13 użytkownik Joseph Seddon 
> napisał:
>
>> The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
>> volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
>> users seven and a half years later.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-08 Thread Tomasz Ganicz 
But the statistics we are talking about are from 2016 not 2006... And I
think this is good point as I rember similar discussion in Polish Wikipedia
when strong supporterts of Visual were found actually not using it on
regular basis. Answering the question why you are personally not using it
althgough you claim it is so wonderful might help with future development
of this tool...

pon., 7 gru 2020, 23:13 użytkownik Joseph Seddon 
napisał:

> The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
> volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
> users seven and a half years later.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Željko Blaće 
It would be awesome if this list could either have basic moderation and/or
an option to opt out of threads.


On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 23:37, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we
> could stop having the list clogged up with questions about one person's
> editing history.
>
> Also, I can't quite remember the list policy on people who are blocked
> from one or more Wikipedias for disruptive behaviour contributing here.
> Could one of the list admins clarify?
>

>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Chris Keating 
I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we
could stop having the list clogged up with questions about one person's
editing history.

Also, I can't quite remember the list policy on people who are blocked from
one or more Wikipedias for disruptive behaviour contributing here. Could
one of the list admins clarify?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Joseph Seddon 
The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
users seven and a half years later.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Demian 
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:03, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> Please let us avoid using misleading statistics to make a point.
>


> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:02, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian  wrote:
>
>> [...], but to be exact, I was looking to understand why only 2.8% (47 out
>> of 1668
>> )
>> of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
>> Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189
>> 
>> /399 
>> mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
>> out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
>>
>
> At this point, I think looking at the editing environment Seddon used
> across his staff and personal edit history has dubious value to furthering
> this discussion about fundraising.
>

Hello Dan, we haven't met yet. Thank you for your feedback. You've pointed
out that the statistics I've provided was superficial - which it was -,
therefore I've produced exact numbers to satisfy your expectation. Are you
saying this has "dubious value"? I'm sorry if that's how you feel: it made
Seddon's opinion on Visual Editor more understandable than just the work
account that I knew about (the personal account is not declared). I'd say
that's a benefit. Please note that I don't appreciate my work being
described with these words. Accurate facts serve as a basis for quality
work and acquiring those facts takes valuable time.


> While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it on meta with
>> similar success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at
>> least 80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service
>> provided by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example.
>>
>
> I think we'd all love that. I certainly would. Making that happen would
> probably be a large organisational pivot; I can't find any statistics about
> how big the team is that made, say, Google Docs, but I suspect it's larger
> than the entire Wikimedia Foundation. This topic would probably have been
> better discussed in the movement strategy conversations, as a thread on a
> mailing list won't make it happen.
>

These are just examples of what's possible, not the focus of my question.

Therefore my concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what
>> was the reason not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major
>> edits on meta?
>>
>
> I'm sure the Editing team would appreciate your help with conducting
> systematic user research. Have you reached out to them?
>

Yes, I did, but the topic of this thread is  not user research, but a
simple question, and it is now getting longer than intended. As the rest of
the topics were exhausted, just this one question remains if Seddon wishes
to answer it.
Thank you for your feedback once again.


Aron
*Senior Software Architect and Analyst*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana) 
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian  wrote:

> I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not
> clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
> wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
> only 2.8% (47 out of 1668
> )
> of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
> Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189
> 
> /399 
> mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
> out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
>

At this point, I think looking at the editing environment Seddon used
across his staff and personal edit history has dubious value to furthering
this discussion about fundraising.


> While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it on meta with
> similar success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at
> least 80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service
> provided by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example.
>

I think we'd all love that. I certainly would. Making that happen would
probably be a large organisational pivot; I can't find any statistics about
how big the team is that made, say, Google Docs, but I suspect it's larger
than the entire Wikimedia Foundation. This topic would probably have been
better discussed in the movement strategy conversations, as a thread on a
mailing list won't make it happen.


> Therefore my concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what
> was the reason not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major
> edits on meta?
>

I'm sure the Editing team would appreciate your help with conducting
systematic user research. Have you reached out to them?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Demian 
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 11:32, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> I believe the nature of the edits speak for themselves.
>
> Seddon
>

I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not
clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
only 2.8% (47 out of 1668
)
of your mainspace edits since 2016 are made with Visual Editor. To answer
Dan: I was unaware of the personal account with 189

/399 
mainspace visual edits since 2016, which makes the grand total 11.41% (236
out of 2067) of mainspace edits.
While Visual Editor has its benefits and I also use it on meta with similar
success rate, for me the dream would be an editor that I can use at least
80% of the time, and the ultimate would be 100% like the service provided
by Dropbox Paper, Google Docs, Coda and Nuclino for example. Therefore my
concern is if Visual Editor met your expectations well, what was the reason
not to use it for 1800+ edits, which includes most major edits on meta?


Thank you.

Aron
*Senior Software Architect and Analyst*



> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:55 AM Demian  wrote:
>
>> Hey Seddon,
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>>
>>> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the
>>> donations our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if
>>> they aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to
>>> give any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will
>>> look into this and if we can, try and to improve it.
>>>
>>> Long answer: If I look at where things are now versus where things were
>>> when I first started editing, it's amazing the amount of progress the
>>> editing experience has made. Even some of the projects with the bumpiest
>>> entries into the movement have been profoundly impactful. Some might raise
>>> an eyebrow in my use of it as an example, but I am astounded by how much
>>> easier the visual editor makes writing articles. Especially with the tools
>>> that are built into like Citoid. It is a dream to use.
>>>
>>
>> Visual Editor was a big step for the WMF. I appreciate very much that it
>> exists, along with other projects, like Flow and MediaViewer, despite the
>> community's initial/final rejections (respectively).
>> Unfortunately, I can only use it effectively when I don't plan on editing
>> templates or links, those workflows are inefficient and easy to make
>> mistakes. I like to use Citoid, but I always have to fix up the result.
>> With the lengthy loading time, every time I have to weigh whether it's
>> worth the time using Visual Editor. As a result I use it roughly once a
>> month (estimate), although I wish it would be feasible to use it more often.
>>
>> Looking at the greater picture I'm happy that new editors are somewhat
>> more likely to use the Visual Editor, proving its benefit. On the other
>> hand, as a senior software architect who had worked on improving Visual
>> Editor, I am aware of the technical reasons that caused the community's low
>> acceptance - and how it can be fixed -, therefore I fully understand the
>> community's response.
>>
>> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
>> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
>> edits
>> 
>>  (2
>> ,
>> 3
>> ,
>> 4
>> ,
>> 5
>> ,
>> search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.
>>
>>
>> Aron
>> *Senior Software Architect and Analyst*
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Or on the multilingual front with the content translation tool which has
>>> seen 700,000 articles at last count? In the last couple of years we will
>>> finally have integrated editor onboarding tools that are being worked on
>>> which are critical for the health of our communities? From personal
>>> experience, having better onboarding will massively improve community
>>> projects that aim to engage and bring in new editors to the movement.
>>>
>>> At one level you have the discrete improvements being worked on o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana) 
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 05:55, Demian  wrote:

> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
> edits
> 
>  (2
> ,
> 3
> ,
> 4
> ,
> 5
> ,
> search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.
>

The visual editor is designed and optimised for editing articles, not pages
on Meta-Wiki, and definitely not pages in the MediaWiki, CNBanner, and
Template namespaces, which comprise over 50% of Seddon's last 500 edits.
You readily arrive at quite different conclusions if you, for example, look
at how many edits are made using the visual editor in mainspace on the
different Wikipedias, rather than a staff member's account on Meta-Wiki.

Please let us avoid using misleading statistics to make a point.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-07 Thread Joseph Seddon 
I believe the nature of the edits speak for themselves.

Seddon

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:55 AM Demian  wrote:

> Hey Seddon,
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
>> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the
>> donations our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if
>> they aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to
>> give any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will
>> look into this and if we can, try and to improve it.
>>
>> Long answer: If I look at where things are now versus where things were
>> when I first started editing, it's amazing the amount of progress the
>> editing experience has made. Even some of the projects with the bumpiest
>> entries into the movement have been profoundly impactful. Some might raise
>> an eyebrow in my use of it as an example, but I am astounded by how much
>> easier the visual editor makes writing articles. Especially with the tools
>> that are built into like Citoid. It is a dream to use.
>>
>
> Visual Editor was a big step for the WMF. I appreciate very much that it
> exists, along with other projects, like Flow and MediaViewer, despite the
> community's initial/final rejections (respectively).
> Unfortunately, I can only use it effectively when I don't plan on editing
> templates or links, those workflows are inefficient and easy to make
> mistakes. I like to use Citoid, but I always have to fix up the result.
> With the lengthy loading time, every time I have to weigh whether it's
> worth the time using Visual Editor. As a result I use it roughly once a
> month (estimate), although I wish it would be feasible to use it more often.
>
> Looking at the greater picture I'm happy that new editors are somewhat
> more likely to use the Visual Editor, proving its benefit. On the other
> hand, as a senior software architect who had worked on improving Visual
> Editor, I am aware of the technical reasons that caused the community's low
> acceptance - and how it can be fixed -, therefore I fully understand the
> community's response.
>
> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
> edits
> 
>  (2
> ,
> 3
> ,
> 4
> ,
> 5
> ,
> search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.
>
>
> Aron
> *Senior Software Architect and Analyst*
>
>
>
>>
>> Or on the multilingual front with the content translation tool which has
>> seen 700,000 articles at last count? In the last couple of years we will
>> finally have integrated editor onboarding tools that are being worked on
>> which are critical for the health of our communities? From personal
>> experience, having better onboarding will massively improve community
>> projects that aim to engage and bring in new editors to the movement.
>>
>> At one level you have the discrete improvements being worked on or
>> completed with things like partial blocks, revision scoring, visual diffs,
>> real time watchlists. At a more global level things like Structure Data on
>> Commons or Abstract Wikipedia have the potential to solve massive problems
>> the community has faced like multilingual categories or global templates.
>> Those have the potential to bring huge benefits to the editing community on
>> the projects.
>>
>> The benefits aren't always tangible to a specific individual and can
>> often be invisible even if it enables or supports community focused work
>> further downstream. It's worth noting that many of the pragmatic and
>> mission driven choices made cumulatively over 15 years have made this work
>> harder for us. The limited resources in the earlier years meant that we
>> accumulated a huge amount of technical debt and digging out of that is
>> always harder after the fact. I'd defer to the opinions of my colleagues
>> but the increasing investment over the last few years has allowed us to
>> start actually making headway, even if there is still a long way to go.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Pelagic via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> [ Cross-posted from
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
>>> ]
>>>
>>> I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-06 Thread Demian 
Hey Seddon,

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the donations
> our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if they
> aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to give
> any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will look
> into this and if we can, try and to improve it.
>
> Long answer: If I look at where things are now versus where things were
> when I first started editing, it's amazing the amount of progress the
> editing experience has made. Even some of the projects with the bumpiest
> entries into the movement have been profoundly impactful. Some might raise
> an eyebrow in my use of it as an example, but I am astounded by how much
> easier the visual editor makes writing articles. Especially with the tools
> that are built into like Citoid. It is a dream to use.
>

Visual Editor was a big step for the WMF. I appreciate very much that it
exists, along with other projects, like Flow and MediaViewer, despite the
community's initial/final rejections (respectively).
Unfortunately, I can only use it effectively when I don't plan on editing
templates or links, those workflows are inefficient and easy to make
mistakes. I like to use Citoid, but I always have to fix up the result.
With the lengthy loading time, every time I have to weigh whether it's
worth the time using Visual Editor. As a result I use it roughly once a
month (estimate), although I wish it would be feasible to use it more often.

Looking at the greater picture I'm happy that new editors are somewhat more
likely to use the Visual Editor, proving its benefit. On the other hand, as
a senior software architect who had worked on improving Visual Editor, I am
aware of the technical reasons that caused the community's low acceptance -
and how it can be fixed -, therefore I fully understand the community's
response.

With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your edits

 (2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
search: "visual edit") are made using Visual Editor.


Aron
*Senior Software Architect and Analyst*



>
> Or on the multilingual front with the content translation tool which has
> seen 700,000 articles at last count? In the last couple of years we will
> finally have integrated editor onboarding tools that are being worked on
> which are critical for the health of our communities? From personal
> experience, having better onboarding will massively improve community
> projects that aim to engage and bring in new editors to the movement.
>
> At one level you have the discrete improvements being worked on or
> completed with things like partial blocks, revision scoring, visual diffs,
> real time watchlists. At a more global level things like Structure Data on
> Commons or Abstract Wikipedia have the potential to solve massive problems
> the community has faced like multilingual categories or global templates.
> Those have the potential to bring huge benefits to the editing community on
> the projects.
>
> The benefits aren't always tangible to a specific individual and can often
> be invisible even if it enables or supports community focused work further
> downstream. It's worth noting that many of the pragmatic and mission driven
> choices made cumulatively over 15 years have made this work harder for us.
> The limited resources in the earlier years meant that we accumulated a huge
> amount of technical debt and digging out of that is always harder after the
> fact. I'd defer to the opinions of my colleagues but the increasing
> investment over the last few years has allowed us to start actually making
> headway, even if there is still a long way to go.
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Pelagic via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> [ Cross-posted from
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
>> ]
>>
>> I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the other day, and
>> was struck by the large size of the donation banner, and the odd wording of
>> the appeal. (Something about awkward and humble.) Re-checking now, the
>> "awkward" bit is gone, but the following sentences are still t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-06 Thread Joseph Seddon 
Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the donations
our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if they
aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to give
any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will look
into this and if we can, try and to improve it.

Long answer: If I look at where things are now versus where things were
when I first started editing, it's amazing the amount of progress the
editing experience has made. Even some of the projects with the bumpiest
entries into the movement have been profoundly impactful. Some might raise
an eyebrow in my use of it as an example, but I am astounded by how much
easier the visual editor makes writing articles. Especially with the tools
that are built into like Citoid. It is a dream to use.

Or on the multilingual front with the content translation tool which has
seen 700,000 articles at last count? In the last couple of years we will
finally have integrated editor onboarding tools that are being worked on
which are critical for the health of our communities? From personal
experience, having better onboarding will massively improve community
projects that aim to engage and bring in new editors to the movement.

At one level you have the discrete improvements being worked on or
completed with things like partial blocks, revision scoring, visual diffs,
real time watchlists. At a more global level things like Structure Data on
Commons or Abstract Wikipedia have the potential to solve massive problems
the community has faced like multilingual categories or global templates.
Those have the potential to bring huge benefits to the editing community on
the projects.

The benefits aren't always tangible to a specific individual and can often
be invisible even if it enables or supports community focused work further
downstream. It's worth noting that many of the pragmatic and mission driven
choices made cumulatively over 15 years have made this work harder for us.
The limited resources in the earlier years meant that we accumulated a huge
amount of technical debt and digging out of that is always harder after the
fact. I'd defer to the opinions of my colleagues but the increasing
investment over the last few years has allowed us to start actually making
headway, even if there is still a long way to go.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Pelagic via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> [ Cross-posted from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
> ]
>
> I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the other day, and
> was struck by the large size of the donation banner, and the odd wording of
> the appeal. (Something about awkward and humble.) Re-checking now, the
> "awkward" bit is gone, but the following sentences are still there:
>
> "If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge, take a minute to
> donate. Show the editors who bring you neutral and verified information
> that their work matters."
>
> As an occasional editor I want to know: how do the donations show me that
> the work matters? Is there some W?F "appreciation fund" that's going to
> start handing out disbursements to editors? Will the money hire more dev's
> to implement all the unfinished items from the Community Wishlists? Will
> funds be used to run better "community consultations" where the communities
> are actually listened to? Or is it just a big fat cynical marketing lie?
>
> [Add: okay, I get it that donation appeals have to phrased in a way that
> actually causes people to donate.  But this skates very close to implying
> that Wikipedia's editors are paid from donors' money.]
>
> Cheers,
> Pelagic
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>


-- 
Seddon


*Senior Community Relations Specialist*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

2020-12-06 Thread Pelagic via Wikimedia-l 
[ Cross-posted from 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
 ]
I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the other day, and was 
struck by the large size of the donation banner, and the odd wording of the 
appeal. (Something about awkward and humble.) Re-checking now, the "awkward" 
bit is gone, but the following sentences are still there:
    "If Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge, take a minute to 
donate. Show the editors who bring you neutral and verified information that 
their work matters."

As an occasional editor I want to know: how do the donations show me that the 
work matters? Is there some W?F "appreciation fund" that's going to start 
handing out disbursements to editors? Will the money hire more dev's to 
implement all the unfinished items from the Community Wishlists? Will funds be 
used to run better "community consultations" where the communities are actually 
listened to? Or is it just a big fat cynical marketing lie? 

[Add: okay, I get it that donation appeals have to phrased in a way that 
actually causes people to donate.  But this skates very close to implying that 
Wikipedia's editors are paid from donors' money.]
Cheers, 
Pelagic  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,