Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it.
Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
wouldn't bother reading their reports.

If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> 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 <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> 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 <petefors...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','petefors...@gmail.com <javascript:;>');>>
> 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 <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> petefors...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Anthony Cole
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to