Let's see the "features" Discourse have and MediaWiki don't:

  *   Anyone can join with their Wikimedia account. No registration is required.
  *   This is a feature we already have.

  *   Multilingual conversations are possible thanks to automatic translation 
in more than 100 languages.
  *   How are they doing that? Discourse is open source, isn't it? Could this 
feature be experimentally included at Meta? Are they using the Google Translate 
  *   Newcomers are welcomed with an interactive tutorial and badges for 
  *   This can be done in Meta. Even developing a system of easy tutorials and 
gamification would be a great add-on for most wikis. So, if this is something 
really important, we SHOULD be doing for ourselves, and not letting MediaWiki 
  *   Notifications can be adjusted to follow or mute topics, categories, and 
  *   This can be done with Flow.

  *   Conversations can use easy text formatting, expanded links, images, and 
  *   We can do this on wiki. Even the emojis thing.

  *   Complex conversations can be summarized by their participants, also split 
or merged.
  *   We can do this on wiki. We have been doing this for ages.

  *   Posts can be flagged anonymously for moderation. Community moderators 
ensure that the Universal Code of Conduct is observed.
  *   We can do this on wiki. Also, the Community moderators ensuring that the 
UCoC is observed should be working on how to do that on... check notes... Meta.

  *   All features are available on mobile and desktop browsers.
  *   Also on wiki. If something is missing on mobile, then, we should invest 
all the necessary to get it. Not doing that only makes our platform more 
  *   Congratulate newcomers each time they publish a post.
  *   This is a feature already available at Wiki. We can also congratulate by 
hand if wanted.

Is Discourse better? I don't know. Abandoning our own software because we have 
found that others are doing things better? A total error.

I have said this before, but we have plenty of money. We are swimming in a 
giant money pool. Our software is obsolete, and every move we make away of it, 
makes it even more obsolete, despite having the money to solve it.



From: Quim Gil <q...@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Mike Peel <em...@mikepeel.net>
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Movement Strategy Forum community review

Hi again,

The proposal for a new forum comes with a problem 
 a list of main features aimed to address this problem, and a set of questions 
to help everyone find points of tangible discussion and hopefully agreement.

Today, "use a wiki" or "we have Meta" alone doesn't solve the problem. The 
discrimination suffered by volunteers not fluent in English is real. The 
intimidation and alienation felt by many volunteers and many groups that are 
underrepresented in our movement or marginalized in our societies is real. And 
simply, the difficulty to have multiple simultaneous complex discussions in a 
structured and enjoyable way is very real.

We are not claiming that this forum can solve all these problems in one strike. 
However, we firmly believe that this forum presents a better alternative here 
and now for everyone interested in the Movement Strategy implementation. 
Clearly a better alternative for those who are in practice excluded or gone 
from traditional on-wiki conversations. But also to everyone else (expert wiki 
editors included) who wants to get things done in a context where diversity, 
equity, inclusion, efficient use of time, and fun are naturally expected.

Many people have responded to this problem with their feet. Wikimedia 
cross-project connections and conversations have been trending towards "social 
media" platforms for years. Today they are all scattered and still growing. And 
well, many years before social media, mailing lists like this one were created 
"off-wiki" for a reason.

This forum proposes the creation of a platform fully functional today, to host 
the conversations and collaboration needed to implement the Movement Strategy. 
We can offer a platform as easy to use as the popular tools people are using 
daily to connect and discuss. We can offer features none of these commercial 
platforms offer today like automatic translation, better organization of 
complex conversations, better search and memory, and a much better alignment 
with the Wikimedia values. All this is available today, one Wikimedia login 
click away. For you to review.

Keeping Meta updated including possibilities for participation is perfectly 
possible. One of the 
 of the community review asks about how the support of other channels would 
work in practice. If you appreciate Meta-Wiki as much as, say, Wikimedia 
volunteers who don't speak English, please contribute your ideas to find the 
best solutions.

I hope this expresses our general motivation to get out of everyone's comfort 
zone (ours included) and propose this forum.

Florence asks:
> Will there be any notion of Single Login in the future (when/if it starts 
> being hosted by WMF) ?

Wikimedia login is in effect already now, and it's the only way to log in to 
the forum. After logging in the first time, the browser keeps the session for a 
period of time (that can be configured by the admins) so that people don't have 
to log in again every day.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:36 AM Mike Peel 
<em...@mikepeel.net<mailto:em...@mikepeel.net>> wrote:

 > See this pinned topic:
 > User privacy considerations in this forum

So this does not follow the WMF's privacy policy at:

You didn't answer this.

Sorry, I had responded with a link. This is what the link says:

> We are still working on the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use of the 
> Movement Strategy Forum.
> They will be completed during the community review. In the meantime, we 
> provide here information
> about privacy for users of this platform.

Every single link under "Community review questions" goes to your new

We are asking volunteers to review a proposed new forum. We have a forum that 
people can use to inform their reviews. Sending people to the forum being 
reviewed is only logical.

All wiki pages have a talk page, and the proposal's talk 
 also welcomes people to contribute their feedback there too, providing a 
structure to comment on the same questions.

Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
Public archives at 
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to