Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-11-11 Thread Ilario Valdelli
When I start from this page:
http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/

and I click the wizard.wikiedu.org
http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/wizard.wikiedu.org
link I arrive in a page which says:
This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it?Is this the aim?

Regards


http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/wizard.wikiedu.org

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  Indeed, highly specialized tools for the cultural and education sector
  _are_ being developed and hosted inside Tool Labs or externally.
  Looking at the current OAuth consumer requests [5], there are
  submissions for a metadata editor developed by librarians at the
  University of Miami Libraries in Coral Gables, Florida, and an
  assignment creation wizard developed by the Wiki Education Foundation.

 The Wiki Education Foundation just introduced its Assignment Wizard,
 which is being developed with the help of an outside agency. As this
 tool develops, there may be opportunities for sharing experiences with
 other Wikimedia organizations:

 http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/

 Erik

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-11-11 Thread Sage Ross
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
 When I start from this page:
 http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/

 and I click the wizard.wikiedu.org
 http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/wizard.wikiedu.org
 link I arrive in a page which says:
 This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it?Is this the aim?


Embarassing indeed! There was a misformed link in the blog post. It
now points to http://wizard.wikiedu.org as intended.

-Sage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-11-10 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Indeed, highly specialized tools for the cultural and education sector
 _are_ being developed and hosted inside Tool Labs or externally.
 Looking at the current OAuth consumer requests [5], there are
 submissions for a metadata editor developed by librarians at the
 University of Miami Libraries in Coral Gables, Florida, and an
 assignment creation wizard developed by the Wiki Education Foundation.

The Wiki Education Foundation just introduced its Assignment Wizard,
which is being developed with the help of an outside agency. As this
tool develops, there may be opportunities for sharing experiences with
other Wikimedia organizations:

http://wikiedu.org/blog/2014/11/07/user-testing-assignment-design-wizard/

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-31 Thread Stéphane Coillet-Matillon
Hi Erik,

To specifically respond to your question, and as you know, WMCH does have
plans to hire a developer next year for its offline dissemination program
(ie KIWIX) [1][2].

Since Europeana had indicated its interest into maintaining/developing it
the GWToolset, we decided to focus our efforts on keeping Kiwix going
(that's also where our relationship with the community is strongest). This
being said, we also do intend to be heavily using the GlamWikiToolset next
year already, and may therefore need to develop our own extensions as needs
arise. We however first need to find out what such needs are/will be, and
how Europeana will handle the load.

But yes, to answer your question we do plan on having a dedicated chapter
staff whom you will be able to work with (provided the current APG request
goes well enough, of course).

Cheers

Stephane


[1] 
*https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_CH/Proposal_form#Offline_Dissemination_Program
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_CH/Proposal_form#Offline_Dissemination_Program*
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kiwix_-_Wikipedia_Offline



  Original Message 
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling
 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:45:50 -0700
 From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
 Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

 Just pinging this thread -- looking through all the proposals for
 annual plan grants:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_%C3%96sterreich/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_UK/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Sverige/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Serbia/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Nederland/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Israel/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Eesti/Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_CH/Proposal_form

 I'm not seeing any developer contract time allocated to GLAM tooling
 work yet. At the same time I'm seeing reports of breakage and missing
 functionality in important tools running in Labs. To the extent that
 this breakage is due to Labs infrastructure or access to data, it's
 our job (WMF) to fix it and you should (continue to) poke us to do so
 -- but to the extent that it can be addressed in the tools themselves,
 I'd love to see chapters take this on directly. It's possible that I'm
 missing something. Are there more concrete plans at this point in time
 to help support the tools developed by Magnus and others, and create
 new reports on an as-needed basis? Having a dedicated staff person in
 chapters or an affilicate like Europeana who WMF analytics can partner
 with would be really helpful for keeping this moving, in my view.

 Thanks,
 Erik

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-30 Thread MZMcBride
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:16 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 Labs is a playground and Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums are
 serious enough to warrant a proper investment of resources, in my view.
 Magnus and many others develop magnificent tools, but my sense is that
 they're largely proofs of concept, not final implementations.

Far from being treated as mere proofs of concept, Magnus' GLAM tools
[1] have been used to measure and report success in the context of
project grant and annual plan proposals and reports, ongoing project
performance measurements, blog posts and press releases, etc. Daniel
Mietchen has, to my knowledge, been the main person doing any
systematic auditing or verification of the reports generated by these
tools, and results can be found in his tool testing reports, the last
one of which is unfortunately more than a year old. [2]

It's funny that you mention This Month in GLAM as my now-defunct bot
delivered its monthly newsletter for quite some time. The MassMessage
MediaWiki extension is a pretty great case study of exactly what I'm
discussing here: turning a proof-of-concept script into a supported and
maintained tool that's integrated with MediaWiki. :-)

While it's tedious to get an extension deployed, the (ideal) result is
that it has documentation, it's gone through series of review
(performance, security, architecture, and design) and we know where the
source code is and how to build it. That's not nothing!

Integration with MediaWiki should IMO not be viewed as a runway that
all useful developments must be pushed towards. Rather, we should seek
to establish clearer criteria by which to decide that functionality
benefits from this level of integration, to such an extent that it
justifies the cost. Functionality that is not integrated in this
manner should, then, not be dismissed as proofs of concept but
rather judged on its own merits.

Sure, I agree with this in principle.

When I consider Labs (or Tool Labs), I think of the Toolserver:
https://toolserver.org/~magnus/.

My point was that GLAMs should be taken seriously. The Wikimedia
Foundation's historical track record with regard to GLAM support isn't
great. And from the perspective of these institutions, I continue to
believe that it makes sense to invest in long-term solutions, even if
they're more costly in terms of time and money.

Wikimedia DC has been hosting meet-ups at the National Archives lately.
The National Archives has been in the free content business a lot longer
than the Wikimedia Foundation, eh. ;-)  They know that hacking together a
few scripts on Labs isn't going to integrate their enormous collection of
accumulated holdings that we want in our projects and that they want to
share with the world.

Labs _is_ a playground, just as the Toolserver was. Volunteers created
some incredible scripts and tools, but how many are still around today? I
maintained many scripts and bots for years, but eventually you lose
interest, you have other priorities, life moves on, and yet the need for
such tools has only grown.

As noted before, for tools like the ones used for GLAM reporting to
get better, WMF has its role to play in providing more datasets and
improved infrastructure. But there's nothing inherent in the
development of those tools that forces them to live in production
land, or that requires large development teams to move them forward.

If these tools want to be around in five or ten years from now, then I
disagree. I've spent far too long watching far too many people walk away,
abandoning their previous pet projects. That's certainly their prerogative
as volunteers and I don't blame the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else
for their departure, but that doesn't mean there's not a real issue here
in terms of creating lasting, sustainable software.

This isn't to say that every MediaWiki extension is some garden of Eden
where there's no code rot. But at least the current extension process
creates a much higher likelihood of long-term success than the
alternatives. I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.

MediaWiki _is_ the platform, in my view. I wonder: if we relabeled
MediaWiki extensions and started calling them apps, would it be easier to
sell everyone on the idea of the need for more of them?

 - Improved software and infrastructure support for A/B testing, possibly
including adoption of existing open source tooling such as Facebook's
PlanOut library/interpreter [14].

I'll split this out into a separate thread.

In general, the point of my original message was this: All
organizations that seek to improve Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia
projects ultimately depend on technology to do so; to view WMF as the
sole tech provider does not scale. Larger, well-funded chapters can
take on big, hairy challenges like Wikidata; smaller, less-funded orgs
are better positioned to work on specialized technical support for
programmatic work.

Sure, I agree with this as well.

And 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-25 Thread MZMcBride
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'm not seeing any developer contract time allocated to GLAM tooling
work yet. At the same time I'm seeing reports of breakage and missing
functionality in important tools running in Labs. To the extent that
this breakage is due to Labs infrastructure or access to data, it's
our job (WMF) to fix it and you should (continue to) poke us to do so
-- but to the extent that it can be addressed in the tools themselves,
I'd love to see chapters take this on directly.

Maybe, but we need to clearly define what a smart investment of resources
looks like. In my opinion, it's much closer to the development of an
extension such as GWToolset than it is to trying to have someone hack at a
few PHP scripts on Wikimedia Labs.

Labs is a playground and Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums are
serious enough to warrant a proper investment of resources, in my view.
Magnus and many others develop magnificent tools, but my sense is that
they're largely proofs of concept, not final implementations.

We need to build infrastructure, and while Labs is itself infrastructure,
it's really a sandbox for neat ideas, not a proper resolution to technical
problems facing the wikis.

If people want to substantively contribute to the technical ecosystem,
that requires fully integrating into it. This typically means developing
and supporting a deployed MediaWiki extension or, more rarely, integrating
directly into MediaWiki core. This type of development requires an
intelligent and focused set of requirements for new extensions or
development projects that gets a thorough review (and sign-off) by the
people who will ultimately be deploying and indefinitely hosting this code.

GLAMs and Chapters could make all kinds of investments into new
functionality for the projects. Improved Wikidata modeling and data entry
into Wikidata, an in-browser SVG (or rasterized image) editor, better
media search, enhancements to Wikisource/OCR, etc. There's no shortage of
work to be done, but it's moderately challenging currently to develop
scalable solutions to the larger problems. If GLAMs and Chapters aren't
willing to try to tackle a harder problem, there are also plenty of
smaller improvements needed to both MediaWiki and its hundreds of
extensions that could also benefit everyone. But again, the focus would be
integrating into the Wikimedia technical platform and fixing issues in
production, rather than trying to make Labs scripts and tools better.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-25 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
There are several issues and imho the one Erik mentions is crucial. When no
money is intended for GLAM tool related work, nothing will happen. The
situation will remain one where everybody is eying each other... are you
going to make a move ... are you?

If you are all for a comprehensive technical infra structure blabla, all
well and good. Nothing is going to happen without an initiative and, any
initiative that does not have funding support will end up on Labs. Fiddling
with small scale improvements are nice, it will provide some solace but
what we need is a next generation of tools and of particular importance is
reporting. An environment is being developed for statistics and reporting
but as far as I can see it is either really hard or developments are not
being communicated or there is not much to report anyway.

Erik challenges the chapters. I hope the chapters rise to the occasion and
define a plan. From what I observed the most important part of the products
that are of use to GLAMS, stability is the main thing. We need continuous
reporting. We need the continuous availability of tools. That is very much
more than only a question of Labs or not Labs.

If anything it is a challenge to Erik how he envisions to provide a
platform for statistics that will be continuously available and how he will
ensure that tools are stable and are available.
Thanks,
  GerardM

PS The statistics for Wikidata are still broken and who is going to tackle
that and the break in reporting ???

On 25 October 2014 16:16, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Erik Moeller wrote:
 I'm not seeing any developer contract time allocated to GLAM tooling
 work yet. At the same time I'm seeing reports of breakage and missing
 functionality in important tools running in Labs. To the extent that
 this breakage is due to Labs infrastructure or access to data, it's
 our job (WMF) to fix it and you should (continue to) poke us to do so
 -- but to the extent that it can be addressed in the tools themselves,
 I'd love to see chapters take this on directly.

 Maybe, but we need to clearly define what a smart investment of resources
 looks like. In my opinion, it's much closer to the development of an
 extension such as GWToolset than it is to trying to have someone hack at a
 few PHP scripts on Wikimedia Labs.

 Labs is a playground and Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums are
 serious enough to warrant a proper investment of resources, in my view.
 Magnus and many others develop magnificent tools, but my sense is that
 they're largely proofs of concept, not final implementations.

 We need to build infrastructure, and while Labs is itself infrastructure,
 it's really a sandbox for neat ideas, not a proper resolution to technical
 problems facing the wikis.

 If people want to substantively contribute to the technical ecosystem,
 that requires fully integrating into it. This typically means developing
 and supporting a deployed MediaWiki extension or, more rarely, integrating
 directly into MediaWiki core. This type of development requires an
 intelligent and focused set of requirements for new extensions or
 development projects that gets a thorough review (and sign-off) by the
 people who will ultimately be deploying and indefinitely hosting this code.

 GLAMs and Chapters could make all kinds of investments into new
 functionality for the projects. Improved Wikidata modeling and data entry
 into Wikidata, an in-browser SVG (or rasterized image) editor, better
 media search, enhancements to Wikisource/OCR, etc. There's no shortage of
 work to be done, but it's moderately challenging currently to develop
 scalable solutions to the larger problems. If GLAMs and Chapters aren't
 willing to try to tackle a harder problem, there are also plenty of
 smaller improvements needed to both MediaWiki and its hundreds of
 extensions that could also benefit everyone. But again, the focus would be
 integrating into the Wikimedia technical platform and fixing issues in
 production, rather than trying to make Labs scripts and tools better.

 MZMcBride



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-25 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

MZMcBride, 25/10/2014 16:16:

But again, the focus would be
integrating into the Wikimedia technical platform and fixing issues in
production, rather than trying to make Labs scripts and tools better.


False dichotomy IMHO. Usual example:* 
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42259 Quite clearly WMF's responsibility 
to make it possible, but all the interfaces and value are in 
consumers/tools.


Nemo

(*) Yes, I know https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view is 
being worked on.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-25 Thread MZMcBride
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
MZMcBride, 25/10/2014 16:16:
 But again, the focus would be
 integrating into the Wikimedia technical platform and fixing issues in
 production, rather than trying to make Labs scripts and tools better.

False dichotomy IMHO. Usual example:*
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42259 Quite clearly WMF's responsibility
to make it possible, but all the interfaces and value are in
consumers/tools.

Nemo

(*) Yes, I know https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view is
being worked on.

I think it's a limited view to suggest that the Wikimedia Foundation
should only provide raw dumps and/or queryable data and have volunteers
try to cobble together scripts and tools to interact with the data. That
certainly can and should be a piece of this, but there's no good reason
not to, for example, integrate page view graphs into MediaWiki's info
action, allowing regular users to see quickly and easily see an article's
page views over time.

We already have queryable revision information, but we rely on external
tools and services to try to graph edits over time, rather than having
visual functionality integrated into MediaWiki. The same is true of
visualizing a particular user's edits or other logged actions. We're
relying on external tools when we should be trying to create tools that
live within the technical platform that we've created. A generalized,
scaleable graphing/visualization tool would be an excellent use of
resources. Making such a tool could easily have a definable goal with
clear requirements, and implementing and deploying such a tool would have
a very clear benefit to all of our projects.

We have a real problem turning proofs of concept into stable
infrastructure. GLAMs and Chapters can invest in creating stable
infrastructure, but that probably doesn't mean investing in Labs, exactly.
Not if you want to have a long-term, substantive impact, in my opinion.

Regarding page views data specifically, the Wikimedia Foundation has done
a good deal of cookie-licking in this area and that really should be
addressed. The linked bug report demonstrates what I'm talking about. It's
been _years_ of waiting as various analytics team have come and gone (does
anyone remember when Open Web Analytics was going to save the day?). And
yet it's 2014 and we still can't answer the most basic analytics questions
such as how many views did X article get this month? There has been some
deep dysfunction in this area of the Wikimedia Foundation, but I don't
know what any GLAM institution or Wikimedia Chapter can do about the
analytics situation, so it may be best to focus on other areas in which
making an impact is feasible.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-25 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 10/25/2014 01:50 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
 [...] that probably doesn't mean investing in Labs, exactly.
 Not if you want to have a long-term, substantive impact, in my opinion.

I'd like to address that particular recurrent canard here, if I may.

Things that reside in labs are empathically /not/ second-class citizens
by any stretch of the imagination.  Perhaps our attempts to emphasise
that Labs is not production were not clear enough about what me mean
by the distinction - and because of that people have gotten the wrong
impression about it.

What not production means is simply a matter of (a) scaling and (b)
service level.  For the latter, all it means in practice is that if
something in labs breaks not all of ops will drop what they are doing to
attend it as we would for prod.  It doesn't mean that we don't care that
it broke, nor that it is of lesser importance - just that the impact is
lower and therefore it is not reasonable to divert all resources to the
issue.

As for scaling, it will almost never be an issue until something becomes
used frequently by a large fraction of the projects' user base.  Labs
remains a perfectly reasonable permanent home for anything that expects
light or medium use - whether it's volunteer-driven or WMF-driven
(deployment-prep is an excellent example of a service that lives in Labs
which is used continually by almost all the devs and yet will never live
in prod).


Labs isn't a second-grade production for unimportant things; it's a more
flexible, more open environment for general tooling and development.  If
anything, it's /prod/ that is more restricted (in who can use it, how
complicated it is to be allowed to deploy there, what restrictions are
place on what is there).

Any GLAM tools would almost certainly live in Labs - whether it's been
developped by the WMF, volunteers or Chapters - not because it's not
worthy of production but because trying to make it into production
services would make development and deployment immensely more
complicated and much less flexible.  The question shouldn't be Do we
need to invest in Labs but How to we avoid the trouble of having to do
this in production.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-25 Thread Erik Moeller
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:16 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Labs is a playground and Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums are
 serious enough to warrant a proper investment of resources, in my view.
 Magnus and many others develop magnificent tools, but my sense is that
 they're largely proofs of concept, not final implementations.

Far from being treated as mere proofs of concept, Magnus' GLAM tools
[1] have been used to measure and report success in the context of
project grant and annual plan proposals and reports, ongoing project
performance measurements, blog posts and press releases, etc. Daniel
Mietchen has, to my knowledge, been the main person doing any
systematic auditing or verification of the reports generated by these
tools, and results can be found in his tool testing reports, the last
one of which is unfortunately more than a year old. [2]

Integration with MediaWiki should IMO not be viewed as a runway that
all useful developments must be pushed towards. Rather, we should seek
to establish clearer criteria by which to decide that functionality
benefits from this level of integration, to such an extent that it
justifies the cost. Functionality that is not integrated in this
manner should, then, not be dismissed as proofs of concept but
rather judged on its own merits.

GWToolset [3] is a good example. It was built as a MediaWiki extension
to manage GLAM batch uploads, but we should not regard this decision
as sacrosanct, or the only correct way to develop this kind of
functionality. The functionality it provides is of highly specialized
interest, and indeed, the number of potential users to-date is 47
according to [4], most of whom have not performed significant uploads
yet.  Its user interface is highly specialized and special permissions
+ detailed instructions are required to use it. At the same time, it
has been used to upload 322,911 files overall, an amazing number even
without going into the quality and value of the individual
collections.

So, why does it need to be a MediaWiki extension at all? When
development began in 2012, OAuth support in MediaWiki did not exist,
so it was impossible for an external tool (then running on toolserver)
to manage an upload on the user's behalf without asking for the user's
password, which would have been in violation of policy. But today, we
have other options. It's possible that storage requirements or other
specific desired integration points would make it impossible to create
this as a Tool Labs tool -- but if we created the same tool today, we
should carefully consider that.

Indeed, highly specialized tools for the cultural and education sector
_are_ being developed and hosted inside Tool Labs or externally.
Looking at the current OAuth consumer requests [5], there are
submissions for a metadata editor developed by librarians at the
University of Miami Libraries in Coral Gables, Florida, and an
assignment creation wizard developed by the Wiki Education Foundation.
There's nothing improper about that, as Marc-André pointed out.

As noted before, for tools like the ones used for GLAM reporting to
get better, WMF has its role to play in providing more datasets and
improved infrastructure. But there's nothing inherent in the
development of those tools that forces them to live in production
land, or that requires large development teams to move them forward.
Auditing of numbers, improved scheduling/queuing of database requests,
optimization of API calls and DB queries; all of this can be done by
individual contributors, making this suitable work for even chapters
with limited experience managing technical projects to take on.

On the analytics side, we're well aware that many users have asked for
better access to the pageview data, either through MariaDB, or through
a dedicated API. We have now said for some time that our focus is on
modernizing the infrastructure for log analysis and collection,
because the numbers collected by the old webstatscollector code were
incomplete, and the infrastructure subject to frequent packet loss
issues. In addition, our ability to meet additional requirements on
the basis of simple pageview aggregation code was inherently
constrained.

To this end, we have put into production use infrastructure to collect
and analyze site traffic using Kafka/Hadoop/Hive. At our scale, this
has been a tremendously complex infrastructure project which has
included custom development such as varnishkafka [6]. While it's taken
longer than we've wanted, this new infrastructure is being used to
generate a public page count dataset as of this month, including
article-level mobile traffic for the first time [7]. Using
Hadoop/Hive, we'll be able to compile many more specialized reports,
and this is only just beginning.

Giving community developers better access to this data needs to be
prioritized relative to other ongoing analytics work, including but
not limited to:

- Continued development and maintenance of the above 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-10-24 Thread Erik Moeller
Just pinging this thread -- looking through all the proposals for
annual plan grants:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_%C3%96sterreich/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_UK/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Sverige/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Serbia/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Nederland/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Israel/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Eesti/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_CH/Proposal_form

I'm not seeing any developer contract time allocated to GLAM tooling
work yet. At the same time I'm seeing reports of breakage and missing
functionality in important tools running in Labs. To the extent that
this breakage is due to Labs infrastructure or access to data, it's
our job (WMF) to fix it and you should (continue to) poke us to do so
-- but to the extent that it can be addressed in the tools themselves,
I'd love to see chapters take this on directly. It's possible that I'm
missing something. Are there more concrete plans at this point in time
to help support the tools developed by Magnus and others, and create
new reports on an as-needed basis? Having a dedicated staff person in
chapters or an affilicate like Europeana who WMF analytics can partner
with would be really helpful for keeping this moving, in my view.

Thanks,
Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-28 Thread Seb35
Similarly to what you are describing, Micru, BeWelcome has a process to  
identify issues and resolve them in a community discussion. It’s a sort of  
communal product specification/design.


The process looks like: [1]
1/ firstly, community members can submit issues or product ideas,
2/ secondly, there is a discussion with proposed resolutions,
3/ thirdly, a vote between the various proposed resolutions,
4/ lastly, the development phase itself.

Although we have some sort of such process (Idea lab, RFC, mailing lists,  
bug tracker, MediaWiki.org), it’s not as easy to find where are the ideas  
of products, where are the development of these ideas, and where and how  
you can give your voice to influence the path of the development.


Personally I like a lot the BeWelcome process (and it’s a non-technical  
member who presented me that), and I find you could reuse it in Wikimedia,  
probably in a customized form, and with short and intuitive product ideas  
and resolutions (avoid too long pages at first sight).


[1] https://www.bewelcome.org/suggestions/about

~ Seb35


Le mardi 26 juin 2014 15:12:03 (CEST), David Cuenca a écrit :
Erik (and others), is there any coordination page where groups could  
place,
take, or discuss requests for development or requests for  
maintenance?


I saw often that sometimes the hard-to-achieve consensus is found, but
there is no way to evaluate the idea further. What now happens is:
- several development proposals materialize through different channels
(community, user groups, idea lab, RFCs, etc)
- there is a general consensus about project A
- limbo or an IEG, but as Ilario says, that doesn't guarantee its
future viability or integration with current or planned workflows, or
availability of resources for maintenance

It would be more rational to have a further step in the pipeline where
development ideas could be commented, shot down, or approved for  
further

commitment by the ones who actually can understand how they fit in the
broader product management/life-cycle context (engineering? PMs?
chapters?).
There are often community ideas that on first sight look great, but when
you think about the potential problems, implications, costs, or stepping  
on
the toes of other developments, that it is more rational not to start  
them
or delay them until certain conditions are met. But no voice is heard,  
and
that causes frustration and a sense of disconnection in the community,  
when

just a single statement this shouldn't be done because X, would make
everyone more aware of the limits.
And the opposite too, when some idea gather community support and is
green-lighted for further commitment, that would make chapters or other
organizations more confident about what is wanted and how.

Micru


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:


Hi folks,

At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
Wikidata.

My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
movement would be appropriate.

I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
it. I do want WMF 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-26 Thread Pine W
I will add this to my ever-growing list of possible projects for Cascadia.
There are a few other projects under consideration that have received
little WMF support but I feel are movement-aligned and would interest the
public or the contributor base.

In order for Cascadia to work on these projects there will be several steps
such as getting AffCom approval for Cascadia, consensus of the Cascadians
of what we want to do as a group, and finding people with the necessary
technical expertise. I'm speculating that we might hire on a contract basis
for short-term software projects if GAC or the FDC support that approach,
or we might put out an RFP.

In general I would say this sounds like a project we might want to support.
A number of our members have technical, research, or GLAM interests.

Of course, if WMCH wants to do this work and can do it faster than
Cascadia, or someone makes a good proposal to work on this project through
IEG or GSOC/OPW, that is ok. We in Cascadia are still very early in our
development and we can find other work to do if we decide that we want to
support movement-wide projects.

Pine*
* Speaking only in a personal capacity


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
 were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
 in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
 Wikidata.

 My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
 tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
 currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
 wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
 requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
 helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
 tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

 There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
 media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
 APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
 done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
 FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
 separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
 are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

 In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
 chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
 appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
 clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
 more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

 At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
 the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
 all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
 to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
 uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
 I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
 movement would be appropriate.

 I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
 it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
 heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
 it. I do want WMF to solve the larger infrastructure problems, but the
 more specialized tooling is likely _not_ going to be high on our
 agenda anytime soon.

 Thanks,
 Erik

 [1]
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-26 Thread Jon Davies
Thanks Erik,
This is certainly something we are keen to work on. I was talking to Magnus
just last night and of course our experience with Europeana has taught us a
lot )I hope we have fully learnt the messages!).
We are undertaking a scoping review of our Development plans at the moment
and this will be part of the consideration.

Jon


On 26 June 2014 04:54, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
 were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
 in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
 Wikidata.

 My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
 tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
 currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
 wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
 requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
 helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
 tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

 There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
 media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
 APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
 done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
 FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
 separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
 are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

 In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
 chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
 appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
 clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
 more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

 At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
 the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
 all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
 to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
 uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
 I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
 movement would be appropriate.

 I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
 it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
 heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
 it. I do want WMF to solve the larger infrastructure problems, but the
 more specialized tooling is likely _not_ going to be high on our
 agenda anytime soon.

 Thanks,
 Erik

 [1]
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-26 Thread Stéphane Coillet-Matillon
Just as a quick update from WMCH - we are currently discussing our
strategy/priorities for the 2015-20 cycle and yes, we plan to decide over
the Summer whether we want to ramp up our development activities or not.

We will, of course, keep you guys posted.


2014-06-26 10:29 GMT+02:00 Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk:

 Thanks Erik,
 This is certainly something we are keen to work on. I was talking to Magnus
 just last night and of course our experience with Europeana has taught us a
 lot )I hope we have fully learnt the messages!).
 We are undertaking a scoping review of our Development plans at the moment
 and this will be part of the consideration.

 Jon


 On 26 June 2014 04:54, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Hi folks,
 
  At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
  were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
  in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
  Wikidata.
 
  My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
  tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
  currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
  wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
  requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
  helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
  tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.
 
  There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
  media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
  APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
  done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
  FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
  separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
  are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.
 
  In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
  chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
  appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
  clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
  more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.
 
  At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
  the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
  all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
  to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
  uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
  I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
  movement would be appropriate.
 
  I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
  it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
  heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
  it. I do want WMF to solve the larger infrastructure problems, but the
  more specialized tooling is likely _not_ going to be high on our
  agenda anytime soon.
 
  Thanks,
  Erik
 
  [1]
 
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf
 
  --
  Erik Möller
  VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




 --
 *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
 tweet @jonatreesdavies

 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
 Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
 Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
 United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
 movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
 operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
 Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

 Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-26 Thread Ilario Valdelli
Hi Erik,
I would remember that in IEG or PEG there are several proposals of software
development but every time these proposals don't offer a well defined
approach to the maintenance.

We know that maintenance is an important phase of the software development
and it would be good to know if the software will be developed and will
remain frozen at the last step or if there will be an idea to create at
least a community around it in order to keep it updated and aligned with
any future features that can come from the GLAM community, for instance.

To maintain a software is not mandatory and the open license can assure
that at least another one can take it in charge.

Anyway a GLAM adopting a software can be really worried if this software
becomes outdated, and this risk is higher if the change of this software
can have a big impact, and probably the same reputation of the GLAM
community can receive a worst reputation.

I think that it should be important if some statements can come from the
WMF about the consideration to take care about the *lifecycle* of the
software considering also that this is a cost (and sometimes a higher cost
in comparison with the other phases).

I think that this may help also the IEG and/or the PEG committee to better
evaluate a proposal.

Regards



On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
 were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
 in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
 Wikidata.

 My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
 tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
 currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
 wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
 requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
 helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
 tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

 There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
 media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
 APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
 done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
 FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
 separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
 are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

 In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
 chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
 appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
 clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
 more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

 At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
 the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
 all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
 to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
 uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
 I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
 movement would be appropriate.

 I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
 it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
 heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
 it. I do want WMF to solve the larger infrastructure problems, but the
 more specialized tooling is likely _not_ going to be high on our
 agenda anytime soon.

 Thanks,
 Erik

 [1]
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-26 Thread Liam Wyatt
Dear Erik,
(Also copying in the Cultural Partners and GLAMwiki Toolset mailing lists
as Erik's email below is directly is related to them).

Thank you for this email with the explicit invitation for groups in the
Wikimedia movement to directly take responsibility for supporting the
technology needs of GLAM partnerships. Different groups in the movement
have different capacities and different areas of priority - and that is how
it should be :-) We each need to try and 'bite off what we can chew' in a
way that is coordinated, mutually beneficial, and not a duplication of each
others' efforts.

To that end...
Over the last couple of years *Europeana*[1] has been increasingly involved
in supporting tech development for mediawiki that is specifically targeted
at addressing the needs of the GLAMwiki community. I note that the report
you linked to on the stats that GLAMs want[1] and also the GLAMwiki Toolset
for mass multimedia upload which you also mentioned[2] are both
*Europeana* projects
- in collaboration with several European Wikimedia Chapters.

On behalf of *Europeana *I would like to confirm that we wish to become
even more involved in this area and has the full intention of supporting
further development in partnership with interested Chapters when possible.
In the fullness of time, we intend to apply for a WMF grant in order to
enable precisely that.

On the mediawiki.org discussion page for the 2014/15 Engineering goals
there has been a fair bit of discussion about GLAM-related projects that
are not in the WMF's own plans[4]. Fabrice, as process owner for the
Multimedia section of those goals, has proposed on that talkpage a couple
of meetings of interested parties to discuss how we can all work together
effectively on this, notably in person at Wikimania, an offer which we
definitely accept :-) I also agree with Illario's point that formalising WMF
support for externally-developed software is an important criteria in any
grant decisions and for organisational reputation. Fortunately Fabrice has
specifically addressed this issue relating specifically to the GLAMwiki
Toolset which is very helpful.[5]

Sincerely,
Liam / Wittylama
GLAMWIKI coordinator, Europeana.

[1] http://pro.europeana.eu/
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia
/commons/a/a2/Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.
pdf
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GLAMwiki_Toolset_Project
[4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia
_Engineering/2014-15_Goals#Image_view_analytics
[5] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals#
GLAMwiki_Toolset

wittylama.com
Peace, love  metadata


On 26 June 2014 05:54, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
 were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
 in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
 Wikidata.

 My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
 tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
 currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
 wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
 requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
 helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
 tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

 There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
 media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
 APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
 done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
 FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
 separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
 are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

 In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
 chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
 appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
 clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
 more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

 At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
 the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
 all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
 to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
 uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
 I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
 movement would be appropriate.

 I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
 it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
 heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
 it. I do want WMF to solve the larger infrastructure problems, but the
 more specialized tooling is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapters and GLAM tooling

2014-06-26 Thread David Cuenca
Erik (and others), is there any coordination page where groups could place,
take, or discuss requests for development or requests for maintenance?

I saw often that sometimes the hard-to-achieve consensus is found, but
there is no way to evaluate the idea further. What now happens is:
- several development proposals materialize through different channels
(community, user groups, idea lab, RFCs, etc)
- there is a general consensus about project A
- limbo or an IEG, but as Ilario says, that doesn't guarantee its
future viability or integration with current or planned workflows, or
availability of resources for maintenance

It would be more rational to have a further step in the pipeline where
development ideas could be commented, shot down, or approved for further
commitment by the ones who actually can understand how they fit in the
broader product management/life-cycle context (engineering? PMs?
chapters?).
There are often community ideas that on first sight look great, but when
you think about the potential problems, implications, costs, or stepping on
the toes of other developments, that it is more rational not to start them
or delay them until certain conditions are met. But no voice is heard, and
that causes frustration and a sense of disconnection in the community, when
just a single statement this shouldn't be done because X, would make
everyone more aware of the limits.
And the opposite too, when some idea gather community support and is
green-lighted for further commitment, that would make chapters or other
organizations more confident about what is wanted and how.

Micru


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who
 were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved
 in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on
 Wikidata.

 My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related
 tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools
 currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and
 wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other
 requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially
 helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated
 tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset.

 There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all
 media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and
 APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be
 done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3
 FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are
 separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements
 are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help.

 In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or
 chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with
 appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is
 clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to
 more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector.

 At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with
 the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given
 all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has
 to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the
 uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore
 I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger
 movement would be appropriate.

 I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think
 it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's
 heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with
 it. I do want WMF to solve the larger infrastructure problems, but the
 more specialized tooling is likely _not_ going to be high on our
 agenda anytime soon.

 Thanks,
 Erik

 [1]
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe