-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Davenport
Sent: 10 September 2014 11:12 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
Having listened for the last week or two, here's what
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk
pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because
they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for
veterans?
Regardless, you
On Thursday, September 11, 2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com
javascript:; wrote:
Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk
pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
Having listened for the last week or two, here's what I'm getting as the WMF
perspective as the three primary things attempting to be remedied with
Flow:
1) Newcomers and casual contributors have a very hard time
On Sep 10, 2014 5:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
FWIW, I signed my first comment by hand. I missed the comments about
sigs in the wikitext editor interface. If it weren't for my family
situation,
Hoi.
When you look at talk pages in isolation, you look at them on a computer
screen. A mobile or tablet screen is increasingly not used in isolation. It
is where we find our new users and editors. We cannot afford to ignore
them; they are our future. This is why tinkering with talk pages is not
On Sep 10, 2014 9:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi.
When you look at talk pages in isolation, you look at them on a computer
screen. A mobile or tablet screen is increasingly not used in isolation.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
It
is where we find our new
Hoi,
I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
experiences are futile because the desktop experience is the lesser of two
evils. The desktop experience is already bad, the experience on mobiles and
tablets is much worse it is intolerably unusable,
Yes, you are
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
experiences are futile because the desktop experience is the lesser of two
evils. The desktop experience is already bad, the experience
In case it's not clear enough in my sig, this is my personal opinion:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 10, 2014 5:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com
On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is good
software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
On 10 September 2014 12:54, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
* inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
discussions (not a very frequent issue, but a messy one when needed;
Pine notes this below)
On 10 September 2014 07:54, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
* potential to work with Notifications (tell me when anyone replies
to this discussion) without needing individual pings or relying on
spotting
Am 10.09.2014 09:56 schrieb Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
I expected that it was obvious... Arguments that are based on desktop
experiences are futile because the desktop experience is the lesser of
two
evils. The desktop experience is already bad, the experience on mobiles
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2014 07:54, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
* potential to work with Notifications (tell me when anyone replies
to
On 09/10/2014 11:45 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:
What do you propose to make talk pages easier to read and analyse?
That's a hard question, and I expect one where a lot of UX
experimentation will need to take place before we know.
But one thing /is/ known: it's going to be feasible iff the data is
On 10 September 2014 16:48, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/10/2014 11:45 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:
What do you propose to make talk pages easier to read and analyse?
That's a hard question, and I expect one where a lot of UX
experimentation will need to take place before we
On 09/10/2014 11:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Making entering text on a phone a process not made entirely of pain
will be interesting.
I don't think it's the text proper that's the issue so much as the
navigation and (often) markup that uses a great deal of punctuation that
phone interfaces were
On 10 September 2014 17:29, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Clearly, text discussion with people on phones is a known use case - and
arguably the primary use of those things nowadays - so it's not like
we're blazing new trails there. Editing /documents/ is a different
beast
Hoi,
Ditch talk pages asap. In my opinion tinkering is mostly a waste of effort.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 10 September 2014 17:45, MF-Warburg mfwarb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 10.09.2014 09:56 schrieb Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
I expected that it was obvious...
On 10 September 2014 17:47, Martijn Hoekstra
I think this is something of an oops, and not really something we should
judge the product on. Currently the broken mess is notify on all posts on
all threads on the page, which should be notify on all posts on the
subscribed thread, and possible on
Gerard, please think of the consequences of what you're proposing.
There are features at talk pages (detailed watchlists, incremental
diffs, true deletion of content) that allow editors and admins to
detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
libel; features which are not
On 09/10/2014 01:25 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
[...] that allow editors and admins to
detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
libel; features which are not available in Flow as of today.
That is simply not true, at last as of the master branch. Topics and
replies can be
On 10 September 2014 18:29, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Indeed, the Flow equivalent is even superior in at least one aspect:
given that the actual comments are isolated and not differences between
revision, supressing a comment containing libel that has gone unnoticed
for a bit
On 10 September 2014 04:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2014 12:54, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
* inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
discussions (not a
On 10 September 2014 19:29, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/10/2014 01:25 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
[...] that allow editors and admins to
detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
libel; features which are not available in Flow as of today.
That is simply
On 10 September 2014 18:37, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
There have been proposals to use a right-hand bar to show information
relevant to the content in view (see related Wikidata item; articles on
this subject in other languages use these images; etc.); that could be a
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2014 17:47, Martijn Hoekstra
I think this is something of an oops, and not really something we should
judge the product on. Currently the broken mess is notify on all posts
on
all threads on the page,
Hoi,
Asap stands for as soon as possible. It is obvious that there I do not
like the talk pages at all. That does not mean that it makes sense to
replace them tomorrow.
I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely get rid of talk pages and understand
what it is EXACTLY what the cost benefit is of such a
On 09/10/2014 01:41 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
Take a look at this deleted topic at the test page that was deployed at
en.wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic:S214uoczkp47cfsx
As far as I can tell, you could see it because it never /was/ deleted.
I just deleted it, can you still see it?
I
On 10 September 2014 10:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2014 18:48, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that would be very helpful indeed. This part of the article was
most recently discussed under subject Stop changing the genre. Click
here
to review
On 10 September 2014 18:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
When a specific way of working insists on talk pages, it means that the
associated workflow has to be revisited and changed with urgency. It cannot
be permitted that special interests take the whole of the much needed
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
Asap stands for as soon as possible. It is obvious that there I do not
like the talk pages at all. That does not mean that it makes sense to
replace them tomorrow.
I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely
On 10 September 2014 18:59, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Eh. I'm not particularly interested in building features that only work in
VE and not wikitext, and particularly not in ones that would require
changing both the wikitext used to write talk pages for the benefit of VE
On 10 September 2014 11:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2014 18:59, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Eh. I'm not particularly interested in building features that only work
in
VE and not wikitext, and particularly not in ones that would require
On 8 Sep 2014, at 08:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is good
software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
Asap stands for as soon as possible. It is obvious that there I do not
like the talk pages at all. That does not mean that it makes sense to
replace them tomorrow.
I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely
Right, it's gone now. However that page survived the attempts of
removal from several administrators who positively wanted to get rid
of any trace of the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Flow test page, so
I don't know what it says about the discoverability of those features
:-/
It's disturbing to
this represents my personal opinion and in no way is anything official
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
The feature shouldn't be notify on all posts on the subscribed
thread either. I don't want to be notified every time a new thread
appears at any one of
On 10 September 2014 22:28, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
I have about 3000 pages in my
watchlist, and receive around 400 updates daily only from talk pages,
which 50 or so come from unique pages;
On 10 September 2014 19:49, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
The feature shouldn't be notify on all posts on the subscribed
thread either. I don't want to be notified every time a new thread
appears at any
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2014 19:49, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
The feature shouldn't be notify on all posts on the subscribed
thread
Wil Sinclair wrote:
Flow needs a deep and broad community consensus
to what would probably amount to the biggest single
change in the history of the project for the day-to-day
collaboration amongst editors that is so vital to our success.
Wouldn't it be easier to achieve such consensus if
On 10 September 2014 22:49, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't make any difference, Martijn. I ''want'' to be subscribed
to all the topics at my 3000 pages, I just don't want to get a
notification for all them; I want to actively seek most of those at
the watchlist
Having listened for the last week or two, here's what I'm getting as the
WMF perspective as the three primary things attempting to be remedied with
Flow:
1) Newcomers and casual contributors have a very hard time using wiki
markup language and find it difficult to participate in talk pages. Flow
Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk
pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because
they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for
veterans?
Regardless, you make a strong argument for keeping a meta-document
that spans threads
On 10 September 2014 19:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely get rid of talk pages and understand
what it is EXACTLY what the cost benefit is of such a change.
That should be known in advance, before removing the old mechanisms,
not as a
Hoi,
What should be known in advance are the features that are important and how
those features function in a workflow. During the development of software
we work towards implementing such features and corresponding functionality.
We may allow for partial implementation when it fulfills a need
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
have it
On 9 September 2014 10:45, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
have it for
Thanks Erik for your mindful comment. Such high level technical,
social and strategic vision is rare to find. It deserves being placed
in a prominent position for increased visibility, and it helps in
building bridges with the community.
Inter-wiki conversation sounds indeed like a killer feature
I don't know how many people here remember their first discussion on
WP, but I do. Probably because it was less than 6 months ago. :)
My first impression was you have got to be kidding me. I was annoyed
I had to learn a new markup dialect, but that didn't deter me. Since I
had some experience
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Flow is a long term bet that an architecture of structured comments
will ultimately have fewer hard and fast limitations on how
collaboration in wikis can work, and will accrue usability benefits
very quickly (as it
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
FWIW, I signed my first comment by hand. I missed the comments about
sigs in the wikitext editor interface. If it weren't for my family
situation, I'm pretty sure I would have bailed. In any case, it was
much easier to engage
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is good
software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
This is the
A problem that I would like Flow to solve is the high amount of labor
needed to read over a dozen pages across four wikis in order for the reader
to access most of the MediaViewer discussions.
Pine
On Sep 8, 2014 12:22 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John
On 8 September 2014 05:54, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
And yet, after over a decade of open-ended design through social
convention, the end result is... our current talk pages. Perhaps
another decade or two will be needed before that document-centric
architecture gives us a
On 8 September 2014 11:44, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
Now if Erik vision for the deeper than I give him credit for,
... that would be: Now if Erik vision for the Flow platform is deeper
than I give him credit for...
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
Hoi,
Pine, I would like so many things.. I expect that SUL and more goodliness
from this will be a requirement. For me there is urgency in having a
discussion system that works for mobiles and templates...
Once we have that we either have other priorities or it is a really good
idea to be
On 09/08/2014 12:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
While it may not be everybody's dream system, talk pages are quite
usable, as demonstrated by a lot of people using them every single
day.
That's... not a demonstration of usability. Like many people, I found
myself using some random blunt
That's not a reasonable task, Marc. Newbies have an equally hard time
editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
to a good faith attempt. There is no evidentiary basis to demonstrate that
On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
sinebot
Well, I think that the article editing project (i.e., VE) has a huge
potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues. I don't see
tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
such
Thank you for this overview and history, Erik!
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
And as above, I'm open to us putting some short term effort into talk
page improvements that can be made without Flow -- knowing it's still
some time out.
Is
Hello,
a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorry to use this
word, *ridiculous* that you have to teach people
+1
On 8 September 2014 16:43, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate.
Facebook?
So tell me, how do you explain to new Facebook users about the different
levels of privacy? Seems to me that I'm constantly hearing about people
having a lot of problems with that, especially since it's supposed to be a
key site feature.
I'm with you about indenting, it's always been
Responding to two comments. Firstly Risker Newbies have an equally hard time
editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
to a good faith attempt. There is no evidentiary basis to
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As I wrote to Risker, I think it's worth considering spending some
development time on turning something like the Teahouse gadget (which
allows one click insertion of replies on the Teahouse Q/A page) into a
Beta Feature
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Gabriel Wicke has done some experimentation with this as well, and
is looking if he can dig up the old code for me.
Very old indeed, but if anyone wants to take a look:
https://github.com/gwicke/wikiforum
--
Erik
Hoi,
As it is the current talk pages are horrible. You gloss over this fact
because you are so fired up about the potential of end users can
build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request
the platform
developers to build support for them. Then you attack flow because some
Your suggestion is to be dismissed with prejudice because it is so
obviously wrong in so many ways.. I do not care about a possible potential
of a broken system at all I may want to think about features that are
actively used in this broken system.
Thanks,
GerardM
I won't be
Hoi,
The central point Diego made starts from is that the current broken system
has a POTENTIAL for unstructured, unaccountable changes by whomever.
You do not build on a fundament that is collapsing as it is. A system that
is manifestly broken particularly on the one platform where our new
Gerard, with all due respect, your reply is all based on incorrect
assumptions. I recognize the severe problems that mediawiki conversations
currently have, and my points about Flow acknowledge that it's incomplete
software at its early stages and that it can grow into an acceptable tool
for
Hoi,
It is fine to disagree. What is lacking in your vision is a viable
alternative and, as you acknowledge the current system is no longer viable
we are in need of an alternative now. Your notions are yours and that is
fine. However, we are not a debating club really. My point is very much
that
On 7 September 2014 13:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Get real and look what Flow is and how it can be improved. Check out the
use cases it works for and acknowledge the achievements. THEN and only THEN
consider the features that are being tested and are still deficient.
...and having said and sent that previous post, I want to publicly
apologize for the third paragraph counting from the end. That was uncalled
for.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Let me begin with this: my preferences lie far closer to yours,
Gerard, than Diego's. I believe that we have a document oriented
system that works well for stuff like encyclopedic content. But I
think that we should be conducting our discussions in a discussion
oriented system. That doesn't
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request the
platform developers to build support
On 7 September 2014 23:54, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
build new features and flows on top of
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
build new features and flows on
I composed the following as part of a longer message, but I decided
not to send it unless others were having similar issues since I'm on
track to exceed my monthly allowance of posts here ;):
There's one thing in this discussion that troubles me greatly.
We've got a treasure trove of
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
build new features and flows on top
On 8 September 2014 00:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
. e.g. once it is
beta quality, I am sure Jimmy Wales will want it enabled on his user
talk page, which would increase exposure to, and acceptance of, Flow.
...or possibly far less complaining on his page. :-)
Hoi,
There are two ways to look at the talk systems. It served us so far to some
extend. It has been considered in need of replacement for a long time and
consequently we have systems like Liquid Threads that are arguably at least
as good in many use cases and fail in others.
The other way to
Hoi,
You missed the multiple discussion pages in all the other languages. They
are certainly as observant, as eloquent and they have different use cases
and issues as well.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 8 September 2014 06:26, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
I composed the following as part of a
Hoi,
We includes anyone who wants to be involved and does not exclude him or
herself by his or her own actions or choices.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 September 2014 07:09, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Erik,
While I have a lot of reservations about the usefulness of the Media
Viewer, I agree with you that talk pages are now inefficient for all
and complex for new users. Personally I am willing to try any system
which offers the features missing in the current talk pages, specially
removing
On 6 September 2014 07:11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
We includes anyone who wants to be involved and does not exclude him or
herself by his or her own actions or choices.
Thanks,
GerardM
Incorrect.
Erik's email includes phrases like We're not pushing an
On Saturday, September 6, 2014, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So we think a
support forum like the Teahouse, and its equivalent in other languages
may be a good place to start -- provided the hosts agree that there
are no dealbreaker issues for them.
What about setting up some kind
On 6 September 2014 05:49, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Fundamentally, there's one key question to answer for talk pages in
Wikimedia projects: Do we want discussions to occur in document mode,
or in a structured comment mode?
I rather think the more fundamental question is (for any
Hi,
That seems a sensible plan. I am thinking of the help desk on Commons
(in English or in another language) as a good testbed.
Regards,
Yann
2014-09-06 17:09 GMT+05:30 Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So we think a
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2014 07:11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
We includes anyone who wants to be involved and does not exclude him or
herself by his or her own actions or choices.
Thanks,
GerardM
Refer to the signature Erik used. The rationale that employees when acting
as employees somehow are to be wearing a hat of an unpaid volunteer was
worn out when superprotect was invented.
On 6 Sep 2014 14:22, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Fæ
On 06.09.2014 13:39, Quim Gil wrote:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
So we think a
support forum like the Teahouse, and its equivalent in other
languages
may be a good place to start -- provided the hosts agree that there
are no dealbreaker issues for
Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Potential requirements to join the Flow self-service:
* At least one tech ambassador volunteering to act as contact between the
project and the Flow team, summarizing community feedback in the channels
agreed (mw:Talk:Flow, etc).
* Community agreement
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
snip
Sincerely,
Erik
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-July/011069.html
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=LiquidThreadsoldid=100760
[3]
Erik,
I think a lot of reasons for the document mode commenting system got
missed. But there are very good reasons we must retain that.
One huge thing is that article talk pages are not only for discussions, but
also for metadata (article assessments, history, Wikiproject data, as
examples from
Since we already know two of the changes that will come from Flow, the end of
signature personalisation and only three levels of talk indentation; Surely it
makes sense for the WMF to put those to the community now and see if it can win
consensus for those two changes?
On a less contentious
Hello all,
I did a couple if simple tests on MediaWiki on Flow pages with often
occurring edits. The tests failed.
I am an admin on Commons, and I regularly have to remove an image on a talk
page because it is for example a violation of copyright. I see no way to
remove the copyright violation
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
