On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Isarra Yos <zhoris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have the successes and failures of the existing approaches and tools been
> considered? Are things LQT got right present in Flow?

Some, yes (remember Andrew and Brandon have worked on both LQT and
Flow) -- in other cases the team deliberately made a different call,
and they may have gotten it wrong, or not. Let's reason it through.

Flow has LQT-style headers, for example, and thread-level summaries,
both with a much nicer UX than LQT, but adopting some of the same

> Signatures that break the page are currently dealt with by yelling at the
> user to fix their sig and then blocking them if need be. I dunno how a
> structured talkpage would necessarily change that, though having the
> signatures automatically tidied might be useful in general, as it should at
> least help prevent unclosed tags.

Sure, some leeway (and some testing/sanitization) makes sense to me to
see what works.

> Formatting the pages as flat with just ids and links to what the things are
> replying to could be an interesting option experiment with, especially when
> you don't have a lot of space. Like boards. Be like 4chan! Everyone loves
> 4chan.


> Why in the world would posts not be editable? I've never used a platform
> where discussion was important in which users couldn't at least edit their
> own posts (along with mods) where the lack of such wasn't often complained
> about (for instance bugzilla and gerrit don't allow it; moodle and tumblr
> do).

Sorry, I should have been clearer. By default, Flow lets you edit your
own comments, and lets admins edit all comments, just like typical
forum conventions. It just doesn't let everyone edit everything.

Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to