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>
