Thanks, that was insightful. I'll be in touch off list if I feel the need.
Regards, Rui 2014-05-21 22:18 GMT+02:00 quiddity <[email protected]>: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Rui Correia <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia > > Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een > > realising that I was writing to more than one list. I do now vaguely > recall > > once getting a response saying that what I wanted discusses would best be > > discussed on the Foundation List. And I see there is also a Wikipedia > > information team. And how do these, if at all, overlap with the Village > > Pump? And the Portals? > > > > Where could I find out more about what exactly is the purview of each of > > these forums? > > > > > Hi Rui, > There are so many thousands of us, working on so many aspects of so many > projects, in so many languages, that we have hundreds of communication > channels. > Mailing lists: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview > IRC: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels > Village pumps at each wiki (eg English): > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VP > Newsletters (eg English): > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News > etc. > > You can sign up for everything (and be deluged with information daily), or > just ask each time, and hope someone friendly points you to the right > specific location. ("You're not a real Wiki*edian, until you've made and > learned from 50 mistakes", as someone told me years ago. :) > > Basically, if it's a question about a single wiki, start off at that wiki's > Help page or Village Pump. And starting off small, is often best, even for > discussions that eventually grow to encompass multiple wikis. I don't know > if there are any pages/guides detailing /when/ it is best to take a > question to a mailing list. > > Portals (in the Enwiki sense) aren't really discussion hubs themselves. > They're crossroad signposts or maps, giving an overview of a topic's > content and backstage work (generally targeted at readers and new editors). > > > > > Examples of the kind of issues and where to discuss: > > > > 1. A simpler (automated) merge proposal template > > 2. A simpler deletion proposal process > > 3. Content issues that affect many articles (therefore talkpages are not > > efficient) > > > > > For #3, the current method is WikiProjects. See further below, for more on > those. > > The Flow <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow> project aims to solve many > other aspects of these example issues. It's the "communication and > collaboration" system, currently being developed, with an initial focus on > user-to-user discussions. It's built with the idea of being able to easily > embed a single "workflow" (for discussions, this would be a Topic-thread) > across multiple pages, and even multiple wikis. > > Later on (many months from now), they plan to create an abstract set of > "workflow components", so that each wiki can hook together the various APIs > and other processes they have available, to make tasks that are currently > very complicated and multi-step into a more efficient and seamless > endeavour. > > Note that Flow is still in very early stages at the moment, and will change > drastically over the coming months and years. There is a /lot/ of work to > be done, and many avenues to explore. (E.g. There's a front-end overhaul > coming in the next few weeks, based on the last few months of > user-feedback, so the aesthetics will change drastically soon, with many > further iterations and experiments to come afterwards.) Feedback on the > talkpage is appreciated, with a long-term emphasis. > > > > > Some of these I have brought up before on one of the lists. > > > > Right now I would like to make two further suggestions even if after this > > it turns out that I must do this on a different forum: > > > > 1. A source ranking system - edit summaries are full of "not a reliable > > source" justifications. Can we not create a ranking system where editors > > rank each source on a scale of 1-10 and a programme automatically > > calculates that source a reliability value? > > > > > Basically no, because humans are fallible and inconsistent! Unreliable > [statements/articles] appear in generally reliable sources quite regularly. > See > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEREN#Define_reliable_sourcesfor > more details, and links. > > > > > 2. a) "Keep me informed on this" - often one issue is discussed on a > > multitude of pages (Bushmen/ Khoisan/ Khoi and San, is such an example) > and > > it is difficult to keep track. Using any of the existing systems that > group > > pages together - such as categories - could we not create a "theme/ issue > > watchlist" similar to the page wattchlist currently available? > > > > > The existing possibility, is to create a list of pages (eg. in your > userspace/subpage, or a wikiproject subpage), and then click the "Related > changes" link in the toolbox. This will produce a "watchlist-style view" of > just those pages. E.g. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Rui_Gabriel_Correiashows > all the recent changes, for pages linked within your userpage. > > For grander dreams, there is the > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Watchlist_wishlist - We all want an upgrade > (or a few alternatives) to the existing system, but it's a very complicated > beast to grapple with. I believe most of the people with the necessary > expertise are aware of the need, but lacking in available time. Small > features get added or fixed regularly, but an overhaul is in the > backburner/brainstorming stage. (I've got a draft email to send to the EE > mailing list <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ee>, some time > soon, to nudge at this. :) > > > > > 2. b) As an add-on to the above, an actual means of communication to > > contact all editors working on a specific these - Asian languages, or > > prehistoric art, for example. > > > > > Wikiprojects are the current solution for this. On the talkpage of most > articles (at Enwiki) are WikiProject Banners, which link to related hubs > for coordination of topic-based work. Eg. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prehistoric_art and > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Languages_of_Asia That's where you'll > find the editors participating across broad ranges of articles. > There is some interest in investigating better ways of matching editors to > the topics that interest them, but it's still conceptual. > > > Best regards, > > > > Rui > > > > Hope that helps. :) > > Quiddity (and partially with my liaison hat) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quiddity > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
