Seddon was mostly agreeing with the sentiments here, so I don’t think it’s at 
all difficult to understand him.  Granted, I’ve worked on CentralNotice and am 
familiar with the WMF’s internal discourse about the tool, and I even have some 
experience picking through Seddon’s coarse brogue ;-)

Specifically, Seddon summed it up with:
> In terms of CentralNotice and its usage, there is a quite rightly many a
> question about whether this or any other usage of it is appropriate.

Questions about WMF and community CentralNotice usage have come up on this list 
regularly, but never get anywhere, so yes we have discussed but the broader 
movement hasn’t prioritized the question and there don’t seem to be guidelines 
beyond “Avoid constant use!” [1].

When I was on the WMF’s Fundraising Tech team, we suspected that the greatest 
obstacle to collaborative management of these resources is simply:

> At the moment we lack the data to inform those conversations.

There’s a long-standing task to make CentralNotice banner impression counts 
public [2], please comment and upvote there if you agree this might help us 
have measured debate about campaigns in the future.  Of course, even once we 
can discuss impression counts there’s still a long road ahead: we’ll want to 
measure banner effectiveness in a uniform way, and will of course churn the 
policies for acceptable use.

In the meantime, note that you can request impression counts for specific 
campaigns.  I’m sure my colleagues will love that I suggested this.

> I think a good chuck could be solved by simply asking readers and editors 
> what they are interested in

@seddon: Sounds cool, can you speak more about that idea?  How might that look 
for anonymous readers?  Is there already a Phabricator task?



> Regards
> Seddon
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to