Risker schreef op 2015/03/20 om 5:46:
Nonetheless, if you were trying to illustrate that there are communication
benefits in having an easily read flow of discussion, I don't think anyone
is disagreeing with you about that, and simplification of the indentation
system/process would be desirable
Hi Risker,
the researchers' conclusion in their own words (see section 4.1,
Indentation Reliability) is:
*Incorrect indentation (i.e., indentation that implies a reply-to relation
with the wrong post) is quite common in longer discussions in the EWDC [the
English Wikipedia Discussion Corpus].*
On Friday, March 20, 2015, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tba...@wikimedia.org'); wrote:
Just to throw this in here as one data point: 39% of talk page threads
contain wrong indentations
On 2015-03-20 2:52 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
And like Jon, I'm surprised to hear about stories where staff are
reverting to emails. Admittedly, WMF employees do indeed sometimes
discuss topics per email instead exclusively using wiki talk pages,
but in my recollection this happened even before
On 20 March 2015 at 06:13, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Friday, March 20, 2015, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tba...@wikimedia.org'); wrote:
Just to throw this in here as one data point: 39% of talk page threads
contain wrong indentations
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The dogfooding has been happening for a while on WMF's own office-wiki.
We
haven't heard any results about that. Is the system being used more than
On 2015-03-18 11:31 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
On 19/03/15 01:42, Danny Horn wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a
conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that
with the
old model, the new model or the perfect magic
On 19/03/15 07:00, Daniel Friesen wrote:
On 2015-03-18 11:31 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
On 19/03/15 01:42, Danny Horn wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a
conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that
with the
old model, the new model
On 19/03/15 01:42, Danny Horn wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that with the
old model, the new model or the perfect magic Nobel-Prize-winning
discussion threading still to be
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Um... LQT has exactly that model. Yes, you can keep going, but you can keep
going in wikitext, too, even off the side of the page (which is exactly what
uncyclopedians do sometimes precisely because they want to go off
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The dogfooding has been happening for a while on WMF's own office-wiki. We
haven't heard any results about that. Is the system being used more than
the wikitext system? (i.e., are there more talk page comments now than
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you want to have a real world population of editors moving over to flow,
try translatewiki.net when FLOW is ready.
Check https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88102
On 19 March 2015 at 13:28, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The dogfooding has been happening for a while on WMF's own office-wiki.
We
haven't heard any results about that. Is the system being used more than
the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2015 at 11:08, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 Mar 2015 7:55 am, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 18 March 2015 at 21:42, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that with the
old model, the new model or the perfect magic Nobel-Prize-winning
discussion
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that with the
old model, the new model or the perfect magic Nobel-Prize-winning
On 19 Mar 2015 7:55 am, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a
conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that with
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not married to the idea of using Wikitext, but I don't see the benefit
in making an irreversible change in discussion software to a forum that is
intended to be a core, Wikimedia/Mediawiki-wide site (comparable to Meta
and
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's not clear ask for clarification. I am posting from my mobile, so I
don't have pretty screenshots handy. I am by no means suggesting that flow
should use a template. Instead when it detects a reply above a specific
Ok stop being condescending and dismissive. I was proposing that type of
functionality be added to flow as an option for dealing with reply level
excessnes. It is a simple graphic to de-indent a discussion without much
disruption and it improves readability
On Thursday, March 19, 2015, Gerard
Hoi,
Sorry if you feel that I am condescending. What you said was not clear at
all. For me it was not put in a way that made me understand that you were
proposing a solution. It came across as: look how great Wiki synax is; we
have templates..
I hate templates with a vengeance. They obfuscate
What do you mean it doesn't scale?
On Thursday, March 19, 2015, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
REALLY .. never ever heard about that template ... and it does not scale
Thanks,
GerardM
On 19 March 2015 at 16:39, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
Hoi,
It does not scale in two ways:
- you do not get everybody to know about such trivia; there are more
relevant things to learn
- it may work on one wiki but how about the next ?
Remember this is Wikimedia-l not en.wikipedia-l
Thanks,
GerardM
On 19 March 2015 at 17:05, John
I think my post might have gotten lost. But what is normal on wiki when we
hit a reasonable indentation level is to use a template like {{od}} that
has a return and an arrow showing that the conversation is continued
unindented
___
Wikitech-l mailing
On 19 March 2015 at 11:08, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 Mar 2015 7:55 am, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a
conversation
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's all be happy then that we are replacing an unloved broken talk
extension with Flow on a wiki where we have real conversations then ...? :)
actually dogfooding will make it much easier for us to communicate errors
Hoi,
If you want to have a real world population of editors moving over to flow,
try translatewiki.net when FLOW is ready. It is exclusively LQT and it has
localisation in any languages always.You will not have any religious rants
about Wikitext; there is none and, you will not have official bias.
Hoi,
REALLY .. never ever heard about that template ... and it does not scale
Thanks,
GerardM
On 19 March 2015 at 16:39, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think my post might have gotten lost. But what is normal on wiki when we
hit a reasonable indentation level is to use a template
If it's not clear ask for clarification. I am posting from my mobile, so I
don't have pretty screenshots handy. I am by no means suggesting that flow
should use a template. Instead when it detects a reply above a specific
indent level it uses the same functionality that od fulfilles
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
Danny Horn schreef op 2015/03/17 om 21:08:
And I'm glad to hear that this thread has come close to almost inspiring
optimism. That's what I'm here for.
In a sample of one. Still, I guess one finds
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So we've figured out a new reply/indentation model that separates those
two
functions. We've been testing it out on the flow-tests
Also, some nice-to-have features:
* provide View Source (showing the wikitext) of someone's post
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T62465
* post-edit diffs need a Thank link
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85846
* Have WhatLinksHere show full information for Flow content
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So we've figured out a new reply/indentation model that separates those two
functions. We've been testing it out on the flow-tests server [1], and
we're going to release it to Mediawiki soon.
I ran some tests at
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So we've figured out a new reply/indentation model that separates those two
functions. We've been testing it out on the flow-tests server
Brad: unfortunately, it's really hard to tell very much from a conversation
with messages like 3: Post C: reply to Post A. You could do that with the
old model, the new model or the perfect magic Nobel-Prize-winning
discussion threading still to be discovered, and it would probably look
like
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system
does not support a sane threading model - it isn't a threading model or
a substitute for one.
Err, what's the threading model in Flow's UI? Or
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 10:49, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
On 15-03-17 10:56 AM, Risker wrote:
It just strikes me as weird that the software that we keep being told will
improve communication and collaboration is deliberately designed in such a
way that it is difficult for the human users (as opposed to the software)
to be able to immediately discern
Yes, the plan is for editing posts to go everywhere. We want to go a little
bit extra slow with deploying that feature just to make sure that the
pieces we've put in place actually work properly. So it's rolling out to
Mediawiki.org next week, and then English and Russian WP the week after.
(The
Il 18/03/2015 05:08, Danny Horn ha scritto:
Yes, the plan is for editing posts to go everywhere. We want to go a little
bit extra slow with deploying that feature just to make sure that the
pieces we've put in place actually work properly. So it's rolling out to
Mediawiki.org next week, and then
Danny Horn schreef op 2015/03/17 om 21:08:
And I'm glad to hear that this thread has come close to almost inspiring
optimism. That's what I'm here for.
In a sample of one. Still, I guess one finds solace where one can.
KWW
___
Wikitech-l mailing
Nick Wilson (Quiddity) schreef op 2015/03/16 om 19:03:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up the
pages that have already
Pardon me if I missed an announcement, but will there be any office hours
about Flow in the near future? I have a few general questions about
cross-wiki discussions and the relationship of Flow to VE. (I'm mostly
focused on VE right now.)
Thanks,
Pine
On Mar 16, 2015 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne
Hoi,
Sorry but Wikitext is of such a nature that I do not use it as much as
possible. LiquidThreads was a huge step forward and I still find it
astonishing that it was left to rot for such a long time.I really welcome
the move towards Flow.
Flow is not an inadequate substitute, it is what will
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any particular user demand to adopt Flow,
so there's no reason to believe it will gain any more traction than LQT ever
did.
There was significant community interest and momentum
Now done. (I'd meant to earlier, along with the Tech/News entry). Thanks
for the reminder, and the general support. Specific suggestions/requests
are much appreciated. Please do tell me which elements of LQT you (all)
regularly use and can't see in the Sandbox or short-term roadmap.
I'll respond
Hi Nick,
I'm glad the Foundation is finally valuing a usable discussion system.
Unfortunately, there are some serious issues with Flow which will
prevent my use of it in production if not addressed in full:
* Administrators *must* be able to to see a deleted Flow board without
undeleting
Ricordisamoa wrote:
Il 17/03/2015 23:29, Danny Horn ha scritto:
-- The ability to edit other people's posts will be out on Mediawiki by
the end of next week. We’ve made a few interface changes to support
that. Posts that have been edited by someone that isn’t the original
poster now say
Il 17/03/2015 23:29, Danny Horn ha scritto:
Thanks for all of the questions and suggestions. Flow is still in active
development, and there's a lot of feature work being done right now. Some
of the features that have been mentioned in this thread are actually just
about to be released, and some
Thanks for all of the questions and suggestions. Flow is still in active
development, and there's a lot of feature work being done right now. Some
of the features that have been mentioned in this thread are actually just
about to be released, and some are coming up over the next month or so.
Instead of dropping indents use something like {{od}}
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Danny Horn dh...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(sorry for reposting, the first version had attachments and wasn't
appearing in the archive)
As a PS to that long post, here's another long post. I mentioned above that
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you all missed some old good rants. So here is one :) why the
hell is the URL Topic:Sdoatsbslsafx6lw and not something easy to read
and remember?
See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59154.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at
(sorry for reposting, the first version had attachments and wasn't
appearing in the archive)
As a PS to that long post, here's another long post. I mentioned above that
I'd get into more detail about indents and tangents.
Wikitext talk pages use indentation for two different reasons -- to create
On 17 mrt. 2015, at 19:45, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/03/15 15:32, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system
does not support a sane
On 17/03/15 15:32, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
Indentation is a crappy workaround for when your communication system
does not support a sane threading model - it isn't a threading model or
a substitute for one.
Err,
Ok, here I copy my message
Petrb (talkcontribsblock)
Hi,
I think you all missed some old good rants. So here is one :) why the
hell is the URL Topic:Sdoatsbslsafx6lw and not something easy to read
and remember?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
nwil...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We’d like to hear which features you use on the current LQT boards,
and that you’re concerned about losing in the Flow conversion.
Working watchlist functionality, see
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
facilitations for adding an {{outdent}}-like marker
Why? Manual indentation just leads to you having to decode these levels
sometimes.
Il 17/03/2015 14:05, Max Semenik ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
facilitations for adding an {{outdent}}-like marker
Why? Manual indentation just leads to you
Il 17/03/2015 14:34, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies to.
It can, and more easily than with raw wikitext, as long as the correct
reply button is used, i.e. if people actually click reply instead of
using the
Il 17/03/2015 14:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies to.
It can, and more easily than with raw wikitext, as long as the correct
reply button is used, i.e.
No thanks, I prefer this mailing list thread
Hmm, but there are other people who use LQT all over the day and are very
active in contributing (at least on Project:Support_desk), so they would have
the chance to discuss with us there, if they aren't subscribers of this list
(and don't want to
For my perspective (sorry if this is covered somewhere I've missed), who
made the decision to do this conversion? One of my reasons for interest is
that at en.wn we have LQT and *do not want* Flow. (A fairly good summary
of the sense of the en.wn community is (1) we would rather LQT than Flow
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Max Semenik maxsem.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
* An arbitrary indentation level *must* be allowed, with optional
facilitations for adding an {{outdent}}-like marker
Why?
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies to.
It can, and more easily than with raw wikitext, as long as the
On 17 March 2015 at 10:49, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 March 2015 at 09:45, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ricordisamoa
ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
Software cannot understand which post a message replies
Erik Moeller schreef op 2015/03/17 om 1:39:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any particular user demand to adopt Flow,
so there's no reason to believe it will gain any more traction than LQT ever
did.
There was
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up the
pages that have already been converted using that script?
Bottom line, it
LiquidThreads (LQT) has not been well-supported in a long time. Flow
is in active development, and more real-world use-cases will help
focus attention on the higher-priority features that are needed. To
that end, LQT pages at mediawiki.org will start being converted to
Flow in the next couple of
On 16 March 2015 at 21:20, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up
the
pages that
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up the
pages that have already been converted using that script?
Bottom line, it makes no sense to replace software that was considered
barely suitable when
Fiayy!
So happy to hear this is happening :)
On 16 Mar 2015 17:52, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) nwil...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
LiquidThreads (LQT) has not been well-supported in a long time. Flow
is in active development, and more real-world use-cases will help
focus attention on the
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up the
pages that have already been converted using that script?
Bottom line, it
Nick Wilson (Quiddity) schreef op 2015/03/16 om 17:51:
LiquidThreads (LQT) has not been well-supported in a long time. Flow
is in active development, and more real-world use-cases will help
focus attention on the higher-priority features that are needed. To
that end, LQT pages at mediawiki.org
I fully upport and welcome this, but at least for Project:Support_desk you
should communicate this on this LQT board, too, that it will be converted (if
you didn't do hat already, i haven't looked now, because LQT ist terrible on
mobile :P). There are probably very active supporters, who
77 matches
Mail list logo
