Asaf :) Thank you. Yes let us use this list well + with respect. Moderation has been much appreciated.
Yaroslav: +1 to all of that! James: There were /Talk subpages already in 2001 ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Milestones_2001#July_2001 The pursuit of a generalized solution is important. It also seems fair to have a *single page* on {meta, other?} for a WMF noticeboard. Either a section of the m:Wikimedia Forum <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum>, or a separate page. With translations provided where needed. Then anyone who runs across discussions elsewhere (including on this list) that want a specifically WMF response can point people there (and even summarize the Q in a sentence on the noticeboard, if they wish to facilitate). A small set of response templates may also be helpful, to invite dialogue and partial answers. "interesting, I also care about this topic", "not sure there's an answer atm", "not sure I'm in a position to answer, but here's part of it" "this is a perennial question (link to archive)". "this is a perennial flame war, is there a more constructive version that might be answerable?" Everyone benefits from a good central space for Q&A since it is needed for so many ideas and projects that are promoted -- you could also send those topical q&as (currently done on a number of separate wiki fora) back to an umbrella section on such a noticeboard. SJ On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:04 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > thank you for the answer, appreciated. > > Specifically about on-wiki communication, I possibly misunderstand the > situation, but out of 900+ projects you mention, some are dead (no regular > editors), and a vast majority is still in the regime when a few active > users can follow the recent edit list. (I am admin on the Russian > Wikivoyage and I have checked every single edit there since its transfer to > WMF in 2012 - we currently have about a hundred per day). All these > projects only have one noticeboards (typically accessible from the panel on > the left as Community Portal, or, of not, it can be easily located). Again, > at the Russian Wikivoyage, except for the very first cuple of months, when > we were coordinating transfer from the Wikitravel, I can not recollect any > WMF-related person who was interested in discussing anything. We get useful > announcements (typically related to software), but the only time we had > something else (the beginning of the current strategy cycle), we did not > get an impression anybody was interested in listening to us. > > Now, bigger projects - there are may be 30 or so of them where one can not > follow the recent changes (the vast majority being Wikipedias, plus > Commons, Wikidata, and possibly English and German Wikivoyages and a couple > of more projects). The absolute majority of these also have one central > place (typically, again linked to Community portal), where things should be > discussed. I would think that a WMF representative trying to discuss smth > at a particular article talk page - it is not impossible, but as a > community member I would find this odd - at the very least, it should be a > pointer to that discussion. > > Finally, there are some really big projects, where one can several village > pumps without an obvious choice. I am obviously more familiar with the > English Wikipedia, and indeed RfCs can proliferate anywhere (even though > there is a central place one cal locate all of them), and it might be a bit > tricky to find a correct one, but in all cases I have seen if the topic is > even remotely connected to WMF business (and sometimes even when it is not > connected to it at all) somebody would ping one, or two, or five WMF > employees - who could come and engage ina discussion, or come and say they > are not interested, or not come at all - which is fine, obviously > reasonable people do not expect A-level employees to react to every ping > anywhere in the Wikimedia universe - but at least I think these discussion > places are reasonably well localized and are easy to follow if anybody is > interested in. I am, again, not saying that WMF employees should follow all > discussion on all projects - or even that they should check several > selected pages every day - but some communication channel much exist. In my > experience, most of the reasonable questions just simply get ignored - > which obviously creates an impression that nobody is listening to the > community. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:31 PM James Hare <jh...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to > > participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have > > any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project? > > > > I am a product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. What this means, in > the > > broadest of terms, is that I need to know what people want/need in order > to > > do my job “correctly,” for some definition of “correct.” Of course, what > > constitutes a “correct” decision on my part is something not everyone > will > > agree on and that’s fine. But I need to gather information as part of > this > > work. > > > > The problem is that there is no “one” place to go. To give you an idea of > > the magnitude of the problem, there are over 900 wikis. Hundreds of > those > > wikis comprise Wikipedia, a project with a cumulative total of 50,000,000 > > articles. Each one of those articles either has a talk page or could > > theoretically get one as soon as someone makes the first post. So, just > > starting with Wikipedia articles, we have over 50,000,000 potential or > > existing discussion venues, with very little coordination or > > cross-organization between these venues, and this doesn’t even include > > individual user talk pages or really, really specific talk pages like > > “Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents” which is... very > > precisely, a venue to discuss the administration of that specific > > noticeboard (but not to, itself, host noticeboard-like posts).[0] > > > > It is very convenient and easy to create a talk page because talk pages > are > > a very central paradigm to the MediaWiki software (going back to 2002? > > 2003?) and so they are built into the overall website experience in a way > > that things that were tacked on way later, simply are not. But it is a > poor > > interface that doesn’t scale across more than several people or a few > > concurrent conversations. But if Wikipedia’s fundamental sidebar chat > > system fails to support more than occasional chatter, how exactly is any > of > > this supposed to work? > > > > There are two ways to go from here: (a) fix the original problem or (b) > > develop workarounds. If you were around back in 2013 or so you may > recall a > > project called “Flow” that is now called “Structured Discussions.” I > can’t > > speak officially to any of it because it was before my time and many of > the > > staff involved no longer work here. And I am actually very hesitant to > > bring it up at all, much less by name, because of the taboo that > developed > > around it. A retrospective on this project is out-of-scope for this post, > > but if you need a short and convenient answer: it didn’t work, and it > > generally made it impossible for the Wikimedia Foundation to even broach > > the subject for the following several years. (There is starting to be > work > > on this again, and this time, it seems to be going at a more deliberate > > pace, but I will defer to the staff working on this.) > > > > Let’s talk about workarounds. We have workarounds that make the talk > pages > > themselves more useful (talk page archiving comes to mind[1]), and we > also > > have workarounds that consist of outsourcing the issue entirely, whether > it > > be solutions we host ourselves (mailing lists, Discourse) or proprietary > > platforms that happen to be convenient for large segments of our > > communities. There are different advantages and disadvantages to each > > solution, which has only resulted in the proliferation of solutions. > > > > Let’s back up. On the wikis themselves there are millions of discussion > > venues; there are different software interventions that work or don’t > work, > > depending on the situation; and we are now in a position where we have so > > many places to hold conversations it becomes an extraordinary use of time > > (and several people’s full time jobs) to try to understand the > > extraordinarily complex social interactions that take place in the > hundreds > > of languages we speak. > > > > Having introduced all that context, the short answer to your question is > > there are some channels we are better at paying attention to than others, > > but we don’t know what we don’t know. And this is frustrating for > everyone > > involved. It makes projects take longer, it makes it harder to onboard > > staff, and I can imagine it’s *even more* frustrating for the many users > of > > our many wikis who have to deal with the software being broken and not > > really knowing what to do. I think we manage, but I think we deserve > > better than just “managing” it. > > > > > > My best regards, > > James Hare > > > > > > > > [0] This brings up another topic that not all discussions that take place > > on Wikipedia happen on discussion pages. Also, there are over 50,000,000 > > Wikidata items, and almost none of them have talk pages, but > theoretically > > *all > > of them* can. > > > > [1] I remember when Werdna wrote the first talk page archiving bot in > 2006. > > I thought it was cool that someone did that, but looking back on it, I > > wonder why I was happy with that as a solution – it seems really > convoluted > > in retrospect. > > > > > > > > > > positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance > > taken. > > > > Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov <asaf.bar...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one > > who > > > is > > > > > carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list > > > > > co-administrator: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon < > jsed...@wikimedia.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of > > good > > > > > > suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a > sound > > > > > > mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time > > and > > > > > > movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. > > And > > > > yet > > > > > > it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most > worthwhile > > > > > > constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook > > > because > > > > > this > > > > > > list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when > emails > > > are > > > > > > written with such overt passive aggression. > > > > > > > > > > > > I call it out because if we want people to participate on this > > list, > > > > the > > > > > > unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most > > > > active > > > > > > participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will > > not > > > > get > > > > > > acknowledged or answered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you > describe. > > > > It's > > > > > true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants > in > > > the > > > > > past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, > > > have > > > > > left the list in protest. Personally, I think that was a mistake > on > > > > their > > > > > part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior > > yourself, > > > > and > > > > > you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to > > call > > > > out > > > > > bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, > I > > > and > > > > my > > > > > co-moderators have been doing since we took over). > > > > > > > > > > By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring > staff > > > to > > > > be > > > > > on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue > > crucial > > > > to > > > > > listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF > > > > responses > > > > > to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful* > > > > > chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage > here. > > > > > Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better > engagement > > on > > > > > Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of > > > > > accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, > searchability, > > > > > access to anonymous volunteers, etc.) > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose > > questions > > > > may > > > > > have been inconvenient or troublesome to address. Yet I think the > > > > > accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however > briefly, > > to > > > > > prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list > > -- > > > > and, > > > > > I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers. Even > a > > > > > response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, > or > > > not > > > > > to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony > silence > > > > that > > > > > has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list. > > > > > > > > > > As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my > > > > volunteer > > > > > capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list). > > While I > > > > > have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on > > occasion > > > > been > > > > > scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to > > the > > > > best > > > > > of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in > someone > > > > > else's remit. I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no > longer > > > try > > > > to > > > > > respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a > > perfectly > > > > > reasonable question, meriting an answer). Several past attempts by > > me > > > to > > > > > ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk > > > > pages) > > > > > have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well. > > > > > > > > > > For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this > > list's > > > > > subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here: > > > > > > > > > > But if we want to see staff members more actively > > > > > > participating here then those long standing individuals need to > > > really > > > > > > thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly > those > > > who > > > > do > > > > > > so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue > to > > > > > languish > > > > > > and those few staff members who continue to engage here will > slowly > > > > > > disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up > > and > > > my > > > > > > fear is that it will on go away through the increasing > abandonment > > > this > > > > > > list faces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is > > within > > > > > WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at > > WMF > > > > > could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to > > respond > > > to > > > > > questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are > > > > awaiting > > > > > their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this > > list > > > > as > > > > > a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience > > and > > > > > diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) > would > > > > like > > > > > to see. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps this e-mail could convince some of them. And if not my > > words, > > > > then > > > > > perhaps those of some of the other list subscribers. > > > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > 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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > 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> > > > > -- > > -- > > *James Hare* (he/him) > > Associate Product Manager > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > 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> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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> -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
