Why do you consider Wikimedia Space a closed platform?

Cheers,
Lucas

On 26.06.19 11:27, Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> I also generally discuss what I can offwiki (using a number of channels,
> but mainly Telegram) , and leave to onwiki discussions what is strictly
> necessary, but it has much more to do with the slowness and lack of
> usability of the wiki talk system, than with a toxic environment.
> 
> That being said, the wiki talk appears to me as the main bastion protecting
> openness in our projects. We may discuss a lot offwiki, but a summary of it
> is always presented onwiki and can be challenged by the onwiki community
> that do not have an offwiki presence, which is considerably large and an
> essential part of the process too.
> 
> I understand that some people who have an habit of discussing and arranging
> everything offwiki are not prepared to face resistance from the onwiki
> communities when their new apparently wonderful and flawless idea is
> presented there, but that is truly and essentially part of the process, and
> if they are unable to live with that, they should consider refraining to
> take part on it, instead of trying to artificially bend a system which was
> designed to be onwiki and open to submit itself to offwiki and closed
> platforms. I am seeing this kind of discussions and proposals at the
> Community Health strategy work group, for instance.
> 
> In the case at hand, I would like to understand specifically why the choice
> of mounting yet another platform, and a non wiki and closed one, instead of
> improving the existing one, wiki and open, at Outreach.
> 
> As for the WMF, despite what Amir has said, which possibly refer to
> different visions, or even dissidents among WMF staff ranks, at the end of
> the day there still is only one WMF, the one directed by the ED and
> presided by the BoT, the same one which issues those software releases, and
> the same one which issues the secretive and out of process punishments
> which are causing so much controversy these days.
> 
> Best,
> Paulo
> 
> A quarta, 26 de jun de 2019, 08:27, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com>
> escreveu:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> Frankly, I am surprised by the announcement, too. Maybe I do not spend
>> enough time on wikis and mailinglists? :/
>>
>> In general I am very curious for this new platform. I find it quite ...
>> telling or a bad signal that many wikipedians started to prefer discussing
>> wiki topics on Facebook (1) rather than on the village pumps. Including me.
>> One of the reasons is the toxic atmosphere on many wiki pages, while the
>> Facebook groups are moderated.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Mi., 26. Juni 2019 um 09:19 Uhr schrieb geni <geni...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 22:19, Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting so many red flags.
>>>>
>>>> Established by WMF via secret (non-transparent) process, with no
>>> community
>>>> involvement? Non-wiki environment, with the same scope as existing
>> wikis?
>>>> WMF-decided conduct policies? Every single moderator is a WMF employee?
>>>> Forum using closed groups, with non-transparent communication?
>>>> (Closed-source software, unless I'm mistaken?) So far outside Wikimedia
>>>> spaces that the only place it was even _announced_ was an off-wiki
>>> mailing
>>>> list?
>>>>
>>>> Is there something the Wikimedia Foundation would like to tell us?
>>>>
>>>> -- Yair Rand
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree that a good tracking mount, a reasonable telescope and
>>> some CCDs would be a better use of the money (there are some
>>> satellites I want pics of) I don't see anything particular nefarious
>>> here. Improving communications is a long term goal and shifting away
>>> from mediawiki appears on the face of it a good way to do that (we are
>>> after all on a mailing list at the moment. In practice experience
>>> suggests that most people are too busy doing what they are already
>>> doing to get involved in such projects and that mediawiki is so
>>> central to what we are do that most people are pretty comfortable with
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> So this falls well within the WMF’s nominal goals and is a fairly
>>> understandable approach. I still think we would be better off spending
>>> the money on the kit needed to get a pic of Kosmos 482.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> geni
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
> 

_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to