Hi Anthony, Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it aligns well with what I know.
I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like this. Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it; but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of all significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those doing the work in the future. What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, of course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at what it does over time. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > Wrong link. It's here. > > http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/ > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy > > that seems to cover most of the milestones. > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html > > > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <[email protected] > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > > >> Brandon and Sarah: > >> > >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, > as > >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive > >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached. > >> > >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what > >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and > Flow, > >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you > >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the > >> organization > >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid > >> repeating > >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other? > >> > >> -Pete > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] > >> > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but > >> > > embraced? > >> > > > >> > > What would need to be different? > >> > > > >> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation > would > >> > get > >> > > better at asking and exploring. > >> > > > >> > > Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which > is > >> > why > >> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk > >> page, > >> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find > out > >> > what editors need. > >> > > >> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. > >> There > >> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to > find > >> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that > >> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to > >> join > >> > the discussion." > >> > > >> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the > >> community > >> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to > >> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People > >> who > >> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in > that > >> > thing by the Foundation. > >> > > >> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We > >> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search > >> was a > >> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they > would > >> > explain that people like white space. And so on. > >> > > >> > Sarah > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> > New messages to: [email protected] > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > , > >> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> New messages to: [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > -- > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > -- > Anthony Cole > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
